Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Soviet Union (Arms Reductions)

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Soviet Union's latest planned cutbacks in its European conventional forces as announced during the recent visit of United States Secretary of State, James Baker.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): We welcome the announcement of specific proposals on conventional armaments by the Soviet Union, and particularly its inclusion figures on tanks and armoured troop carriers.

Mr. Michie: Does the Secretary of State agree that President Gorbachev's latest proposals are of major importance and that reductions of 10 to 15 per cent. at the lower levels possessed by both sides, and a further 25 per cent. reduction are very much in line with NATO's proposals on tanks, troop carriers and artillery? Surely the Government must now consider further reductions in helicopter and combat aircraft and nuclear weapons in Europe.

Mr. Younger: Yes, it is encouraging that the Warsaw pact's latest proposals fit in well with proposals made earlier by NATO, and that it is now prepared to consider all combat aircraft—at least we hope that it is—in a further round of discussions. That is encouraging and justifies all the leadership that has been given by NATO in these matters.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the present time we are having many fine words, as we had from the Chinese only a few weeks ago, and that all may be well if Mr. Gorbachev survives, but his problems are where hundreds of people are being killed in Uzbekistan? This may not happen, but we should not be taken in too easily. Does he further agree that Britain's

defence is more important than just giving in when we do not know whether, in the end, Mr. Gorbachev will be the saviour or the victim?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. We hope that Mr. Gorbachev will continue to be successful in pursuing his reforms in the Soviet Union, but until he has delivered reductions in the Warsaw pact's enormous level of armaments, we must keep our defences strong in order to be sure that we can defend ourselves against any attack.

Mr. O'Neill: What is the importance of force-to-space ratio arguments now that we are seeing the prospect of considerable reductions in conventional defence, and what is the importance of forward defence now that we are talking about drastically reducing both sides' conventional arsenals?

Mr. Younger: The importance of both those points cannot be under-estimated. In the first case, the force-to-space ratios, which could be dramatically altered if there are reductions of the kind that we hope to see, will entail a great deal of careful military advice being made available to the negotiators, and that we have set in hand. Forward defence is a particularly important matter for NATO because, being an alliance of free democratic peoples, we are obliged to do our best to defend every inch of NATO's territory, and we must be able to do that in the future as we have in the past.

Mr. Wilkinson: In making his assessment, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the United Kingdom's air assets could be as well deployed to the flanks—to the reinforcement of Norway and the southern flanks of the alliance—as to the central front so that the overall arms control equation on the central front is not the only matter to be taken into account?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. Britain's contribution to the defence of NATO's territory goes much wider than the central front. We shall have to give the maximum support to the negotiations in the CFE talks at Vienna and, when the outcome of those is known, we shall have to consider the best way in which to implement what we hope will be large reductions.

Trident

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Trident programme continues to make good progress within budget. We are confident that completion of the programme's various elements will be achieved on time to meet the in-service date of the mid-1990s.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree, given that the cost of Trident is escalating, that its warheads are years behind the times, that there are problemss in making the missiles work, that there seem to be problems with the Faslane development, and that the Government have not even thought about the command and control system for the whole set-up, it is ridiculously naive of the Government to assume that it will work—even if the Russians were to wait until we have a system? Is it not also naive of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench to


assume that we can negotiate away such an inadequate system? Would it not be better to scrap it now and save the £10 billion plus?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his fantasies. I thought that normally fantasies are dreamt up but the hon. Gentleman appears to read his. Nevertheless, they bear no relation to reality.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of scrapping the fourth Trident submarine? Will he tell the House what long-term effectiveness the Trident submarine force would have minus one quarter of its deployment?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we are not at the stage of scrapping it, but certainly we are contemplating ordering it in due course. If there were not four Trident submarines, we would not be able to guarantee always to have one on patrol, as is necessary and as we have done with Polaris submarines ever since they were first commissioned.

Mr. Douglas: Can the Minister give an indication of when he is likely to order of the Trident force? Will he further confirm that an in-service date of the mid-1990s means that a Trident force would be unlikely to be in possession of missiles much before mid-1993?

Mr. Sainsbury: As to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it would be better if I were not drawn on the precise date. Normally, we do not give such dates. One does not have to be very up in military matters to deduce the in-service date expected, and the date that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is certainly the sort of time scale that we have in mind. The tender for 07 is currently under consideration and the order should be placed before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Shaw.

Mr. Shaw: Question No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

Soviet Union (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has that the Soviets are dismantling their nuclear artillery weapons systems.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): NATO allies are still considering a number of options for adjusting remaining nuclear forces following the INF agreement. Among those options is the possible deployment to Europe, including the United Kingdom, of additional longer-range dual-capable aircraft from the United States. However, no decisions have yet been taken —[Interruption.] I have answered the wrong question. I apologise. I shall now answer Question No. 4. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard that done before.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: There is no evidence to suggest that the Soviets are dismantling any of their nuclear-capable gun artillery systems.

Mr. Shaw: Is not my hon. Friend concerned that there is still a massive superiority of Soviet forces in relation to conventional and chemical weapons and to short-range nuclear forces? Is he not concerned that some of the so-called removal of front-line nuclear weapons by the

Soviets may turn out to be removal just for the purpose of maintenance and that they will be returned to the front line? Does he not feel that we should still be on our guard?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I remain as concerned as he that there is certainly no reluctance on the part of the Soviet Union to update all their systems, whether conventional or nuclear, and to ensure that they are fully modernised. He is right that there are plans to withdraw a very small number of the Soviet's nuclear-capable artillery but that it may be redeployed in some other form.

Mr. Flannery: Does not the Minister get the message, especially after seeing the 1 o'clock news, that Germany, which is much nearer the front line than we are, greets Mr. Gorbachev as someone who is more popular than any other international statesman? When will the Government stop basing their foreign policy on the assumption that the Russians are about to attack us at 2 o'clock next Wednesday afternoon? Do not the Government realise that the world is a changed place? It is about time that the leading figures on the Government Front Bench, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, get their act together and did something decent internationally.

Mr. Hamilton: The Government's defence policy is not based on the assumption that the Soviets are about to attack us any minute, but on the capability of the Soviet forces and those in the Warsaw pact. We have seen dramatic changes in the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in the past few years and we could see other dramatic changes in quite a different direction. If we did, where would we be if such a massive capability existed in the Soviet Union?

Mr. David Martin: Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the past five years alone, 95 per cent. of Soviet short-range nuclear missiles have been updated?

Mr. Hamilton: It is quite true that there has been an extensive modernisation programme of short-range Soviet systems.

F111

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future deployment plans for the F111 in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: United States air force F111 aircraft are currently stationed at two airfields in the United Kingdom: the 20th tactical fighter wing at RAF Upper Heyford and the 48th tactical fighter wing at RAF Lakenheath. These aircraft represent an important part of NATO's deterrent capability. No decisions have yet been taken to change the number of F111 aircraft stationed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware that the Dutch Minister has announced to the Dutch Parliament that there is to be an increase in the number of F111s sited in the United Kingdom and that there has already been an agreement between the United Kingdom authorities and the United States Government? Is the Minister calling the Dutch Minister a liar or is he not giving this Parliament the information that it deserves?

Mr. Hamilton: I am not aware of what the Dutch Minister said. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that no agreement has been reached on the issue of stationing more F111s in this country

Mr. Baldry: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have a letter from a senior member of the United States Congress armed forces committee which states in clear terms that that committee has not yet even begun to consider the Department of Defence's requests for new facilities at RAF Upper Heyford? Against that background, are not some of the assertions given by groups such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, about more F111s coming into the United Kingdom at the moment, a distortion of the truth?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right: they certainly are a distortion of the truth. The only work that has been carried out at Upper Heyford has been design work, which was merely to assess what sort of costs we were talking about. In practice, there has been no approval, either by the British Government or Congress for the work to go ahead.

Mr. Rogers: The Opposition are confused by the Minister's answer—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rogers: According to the Hansard of the Dutch Parliament, the Defence Minister said that there had been an argument between this Government and the Americans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked: who is telling lies? After the Wintex operation, the West Germans also have grave doubts about the efficacy of the F111s stationed in this country, particularly because their limited range means that most of them would land on West Germany. Did the Minister discuss the enhanced employment of the F111s with the West Germans before coming to an agreement with the United States?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on the wrong premise. We have not reached any agreement with the United States on this and the United States has not put forward any proposal to us. It may have ideas of its own on the matter, but it has not yet come to Ministers for approval and there is no question of us having given approval.

Soviet Union (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department will be responding to the Soviet proposal to withdraw 500 nuclear warheads from eastern Europe.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: We welcome the Soviets' announcement that they will withdraw 500 nuclear warheads from eastern Europe, but believe that this probably represents as little as 5 per cent. of the total number of Soviet nuclear warheads deployed within the European theatre. In contrast, since 1979 NATO has withdrawn 2,400 nuclear weapons from Europe, leaving only approximately 4,600 within the theatre. The Soviet Union will therefore have to make further very substantial reductions if they are to come down to the size of NATO's nuclear stockpile in Europe.

Mr. Thurnham: I welcome the Russian proposals, but is it not vital for us to keep up our nuclear guard in the face of the continuing massive superiority of Communist forces, both conventional and nuclear? In view of the ruthlessness of the Communist leaders in Peking, does my hon. Friend think that it is time that the Labour party got into step with NATO policy?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The recent summit confirmed NATO's support for flexible response, which is an incredibly important part of our deterrent effort in NATO. In opposing that concept, Labour is out of step with all the other nations in Europe at present. It rings rather hollow when we are told in the current election campaign that Labour party members are such good Europeans when they are the only people out of step on defence.

Mr. Heffer: Does the Minister think that—just for once—the Government might deliver a positive response to the Soviet Union? Is it not clear that Gorbachev has his own problems in the Soviet Union, and that the response from the West should be positive to help him out against those generals and others who—like generals in this country—are clearly wedded to concepts of war rather than of peace?

Mr. Hamilton: Great responses have been made: that is why we have entered into serious negotiations in Vienna. We cannot be said not to be responding. It is clearly much simpler for the Soviets to make unilateral gestures because of their present enormous superiority in armaments, which enables them to make great demonstrations of slashing numbers.

Warsaw Pact Forces

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bombers, fighter bombers and fighters he estimates that the Warsaw pact could currently deploy; and what resources the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has at its disposal to counter this threat.

Mr. Younger: We estimate Warsaw pact holdings of light and medium bombers, fighter bombers, fighters and reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft stationed in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals as 8,250 aircraft, compared with 3,977 such aircraft for NATO.

Mr. Jack: Can my right hon. Friend reassure aerospace workers in my constituency that, in the light of recent discussions at the NATO summit, high-quality aircraft such as the Tornado and European fighter aircraft will still be needed to meet the threat that he has identified? Can he also reassure me that he does not expect there to be a barrier to the completion of the EFA project from the still outstanding decision on its radar?

Mr. Younger: Certainly I can. First, the aircraft will be needed to replace the aircraft at present covering us in that role. Secondly, it seems likely that if, as we hope, we achieve great reductions in the amount of armaments, there will be an overwhelming need for the highest possible quality.

Mr. Cohen: Are not the majority of NATO aircraft dual-capable, that is nuclear as well as conventional? Does that not apply to a far lower proportion of Warsaw pact


aircraft? If the Warsaw pact has more aircraft overall, why does not the Minister hurry to secure an agreement on a much lower level of aircraft on both sides?

Mr. Younger: That is precisely what we are trying—very successfully—to do. We have been proposing enormous reductions in common ceilings for all those weapon systems for a long time, and at long last the Warsaw pact is beginning to catch up with the West's initiatives.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the original question, does not the disparity in the strengths of the respective air forces of the Warsaw pact and NATO merely underline the necessity for us not only to retain our strength in dual-capable aircraft but for us positively to welcome the presence of the American air force in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the existence of an alliance of free democratic nations—which is what NATO is—requires a balanced system of defence to ensure that no attack against any member of that alliance could succeed. All that is in place now. If, as we hope, that can be achieved in future with much lower levels of armaments, sound defences will still be necessary to back up our freedoms and democracy.

United States Secretary of State for Defence

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his United States counterpart and what issues he plans to discuss.

Mr. Younger: I met Mr. Cheney at the meeting of NATO's defence planning committee last week and I hope to meet him again in the near future to discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State consider telling Mr. Cheney that we welcome the force reduction proposals recently made by President Bush and now call for urgent talks with the Soviet Union about nuclear reductions in Europe? Meanwhile, will Her Majesty's Government consider abandoning their nuclear modernisation proposals and get down to serious and meaningful negotiations?

Mr. Younger: It would be extremely foolish to do that, although I realise that that is the established policy of the Labour party. I welcome warmly President Bush's initiative, which has made it clear that we in the West wish to see a reduction in the level of armaments. We have made it quite clear—with the support of every single one of our NATO allies, including all those that have Socialist Governments—that we believe that, for the foreseeable future, nuclear deterrence will remain our defence. For that reason, we do not think that it would be sensible to start negotiations for the reduction of nuclear weapon systems until the complete implementation of any reductions under the CFE.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the arms control talks that are now taking place are possible only because the West is able to speak from a position of military strength and that it is most important,

in this violent and troublesome world, to keep our defences intact, to maintain them, to update them and to keep close to our NATO allies?

Mr. Younger: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. If anyone does not agree, I should have thought that it would have been completely clear to him that this policy has stood us in good stead in recent years and has also been instrumental in bringing the Warsaw pact to the negotiating table. As a result, we see the prospect of a substantial reduction in the level of armaments. That is proof to me that NATO policy has worked dramatically well.

Mr. Wallace: Can the Secretary of State confirm that at the meeting last week to which he referred a decision was taken to reaffirm the 3 per cent. per annum real increase in NATO defence spending? Did the Secretary of State and Mr. Cheney suggest the extent to which they expect the respective countries to reach that target, and was any consideraton given to how that would be consistent with NATO's arms control objectives?

Mr. Younger: There was a short debate on the subject at last week's meeting. As the hon. Gentleman has correctly said, there was unanimous agreement that the 3 per cent. should be kept as a target. It has never been a target that every nation has reached, but most nations have reached it at one time or another. For that reason, it has been a vey good yardstick with which to judge various members' performances within the Alliance. We think that it is valuable to keep it for the future.

Departmental Cost-effectiveness

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department has achieved since 1979 in cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Sainsbury: Since 1979, my Department has significantly reduced manpower numbers and the size of the defence estate and has launched a range of other initiatives aimed at improving cost-effectiveness. These have included a greater use of competition in the procurement of defence equipment, an extensive programme of contracting out support services, and a wide range of efficiency studies, including some 20 efficiency unit scrutinies. The Department is currently engaged in an exercise to achieve a cumulative improvement in efficiency of 2·5 per cent. per annum during the three years ending in March 1991.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. One of the impacts of the Ministry of Defence's procedure has been to bring a great many more companies on to the defence list of contractors. That has been particularly helpful in areas such as the west midlands, especially to smaller companies to which special priority has been given by the Ministry of Defence. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about the impact of these value-for-money programmes on the effectiveness of his Department?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend says about the value that we attach to ensuring that we have as many contractors as possible on our suppliers' list, particularly small contractors. We are continuing with


the programme of presentations and publicity to suppliers to encourage them to come forward and tender for Ministry of Defence business.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister's first reply was a lot of old bull—[Interruption.] It is absolute bull.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a very elegant word.

Mr. Banks: I am not a very elegant person—[Interruption.] Tory Members should sit down and take it. When will the Minister do something about the hoarding of land by the Ministry of Defence and all those empty properties? By what right can the Government possibly attack local authorities for having empty properties when his Department has more empty properties than any other Department? When will the Minister do something about that?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is known for his interest in the arts, clearly does not have much interest in mathematics as an efficiency saving of 2·5 per cent. per annum is clearly too much for him to comprehend. There has been reference to the Department's slowness in disposing of surplus land and I cannot pretend that it has been a perfect performance in the past. The report to which he refers recognises that measures are beng taken to improve performance in future.

Mr. Conway: Is not my hon. Friend's attitude towards cost-effectiveness in procurement ably demonstrated by the Government's support for the Vickers option for the next generation of main battle tanks, which includes the engine manufactured in Shrewsbury by Perkins, which uses 50 per cent. of the fuel of any of its main competitors? Does not that determination to support British engineering at its most able demonstrate the Government's loyalty to British engineering and to cost-effectiveness?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that cost in use through life cost is a very important part of the assessments we make in taking procurement decisions. Fuel efficiency is one of the factors to which we give high priority in taking those decisions.

Mr. Rogers: Part of the Government's justification for the cancellation of Nimrod was the promise of a 100 per cent. offset deal. It is now 130 per cent., but it was 100 per cent. at the time. Perhaps the Secretary of State could check that. In view of the very limited amount of offset work that hat been received and is outlined in the third report of the Defence Committee, does the Minister now think that the cancellation of Nimrod was cost-effective?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the Opposition are having such difficulty with their mathematics. The figure is 130 per cent., not 100 per cent. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the third report which is rather complimentary to the programme, including the statement in paragraph 67:
Boeing have expressed full commitment to the offset programme; and, extrapolating figures so far available, they may well meet their offset obligation by 1995.

Warsaw Pact (Nerve Gas)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the Warsaw pact nerve gas capability; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Soviet Union is the only member of the Warsaw pact to have acknowledged that it has an offensive chemical warfare capability, although we believe that such weapons have been produced by other Warsaw pact countries. On its own, it possesses the largest and most sophisticated chemical warfare capability in the world and nerve agents are just one of the types of agent declared to be in its stockpile.
Nevertheless, we find it difficult to accept a number of the Soviet Union's statements about its own and its allies' chemical warfare activities. We estimate that the Soviet stockpile of chemical warfare agents is several times larger than its claim of only 50,000 tonnes.
There is an obvious need for the Soviet Union to make available much more information about its chemical warfare capabilities if the confidence necessary for a global chemical warfare ban is to be established.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the West disarmed totally of chemical and nerve gas weapons in the 1950s, but received not a single reciprocal response from the Soviet Union, which is believed to have nearly half a million tonnes of chemical weapons? Does he agree that a similar disarmament of nuclear weapons would be a disaster and would encourage the Soviet Union and its allies to stockpile all the more, to our detriment?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes. That is absolutely right. It is an example of unilateral disarmament clearly not having worked. We did that some 30 years ago and there has been no reciprocal action on behalf of the Soviet Union. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we would be in great danger if we got rid of our own nuclear weapons, as we are living in a world where more nations are acquiring nuclear capability.

Mr. Brazier: Can my hon. Friend confirm that those weapons give the Warsaw pact forces an overwhelming advantage, not only because they are extremely effective, but because the fact that Warsaw pact forces have them and NATO has hardly any means that the defensive counter-measures we have to take put our own troops at an enormous operating disadvantage?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. Wearing the suits that are necessary to be immune from those weapons inhibits much of what our troops can do as fighting men.

Multiple Launch Rocket System

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals exist for the multiple launch rocket system to be capable of firing short-range nuclear weapons.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The United States announced its choice of the M270 multiple launch rocket system as a launcher for a successor missile to Lance to NATO's high level group on 5 December, publicly confirming this decision the following day. The nuclear missile for the launcher has not yet been selected. The choice of launcher and missile are national United States decisions. At the recent NATO summit, the Allies recognised the value of the United States development programme and agreed to deal with the question of the introduction and deployment of a follow-on to Lance in 1992. The Alliance also recognised that ground-based missiles would be needed in Europe for as long as could be foreseen.

Mr. Pike: Will not proposals to arm the MLRS with nuclear warheads as well as conventional warheads make any future verification arrangements arising from any future treaties extremely difficult? Should not those proposals, therefore, be condemned? Will the Minister give the assurance today that MLRS to be deployed by Britain will not have nuclear warheads?

Mr. Hamilton: No. I certainly do not think that the proposal should be condemned. It is an important part of our flexible response and, as I said earlier, NATO is aligned with that concept. It has also been agreed at the recent summit that there will be no third zero on short-range nuclear forces. That was why the word "partial" was so important in terms of the reductions with which NATO was prepared to go ahead at the recent summit.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State said on 30 January in answer to a question on BBC news that there would be a decision on the modernisation of Lance by the summer time? Now that that has been delayed until 1992, does the Minister take that as a success for British negotiation at the summit or as a failure?

Mr. Hamilton: It is extremely important to take the summit as a whole. We are very pleased with the fact that there will be no reductions in SNF forces until after the CFE conventional forces reductions have taken place. Altogether, the summit came out very satisfactorily.

Front-Line Forces (Europe)

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the defence implications of the Soviet proposal to thin out front-line forces in Europe.

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the defence implications of the Soviety proposal to thin out front-line forces in Europe.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Reductions in the Warsaw pact's massive concentrations of forces in Europe would be very welcome. However, its current zonal proposals would make it very difficult to sustain NATO's strategy of forward defence. Nevertheless, we are studying them with care.

Mrs. Mahon: I find that a disappointing answer. Is it not time that the Minister took President Gorbachev's offer to thin out front-line defences seriously? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] With safeguards and verification, could it not mean a much lower level of forces all round? Should not NATO be thinking anyway of replacing its forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—defence with one of defensive defence?

Mr. Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, a forward defence is an essential part of NATO strategy and has been agreed by NATO for some time. It is also a policy of great importance to the Germans.

Mr. Patchett: Should not NATO agree with President Gorbachev to thin out front-line troops in Europe, as we are reaching a situation in which we do not have the troops

to fulfil the commitment to a forward defence policy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Could not vast sums of military expenditure be saved without sacrificing security if NATO were to drop what, in reality, is an outdated and offensive posture?

Mr. Hamilton: We are rather moving ahead of the game. It is important that we wait for the outcome of the CFE negotiations that are going on now and have a co-ordinated response to the Soviet proposals, as well as seeing what the Soviet response is to NATO's well-tried proposals, before we start trying to replan our strategy.

Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful and cautious in giving any response to any proposal emanating from the Soviet Union, especially as the Soviet Union is likely to be successful in neutralising public opinion in West Germany?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes. One certainly has to acknowledge that the ability of the Soviet Union to mobilise public opinion in the West has been impressive. We must bear in mind that the Soviet Union is going through a period of dramatic change and it does not necessarily follow that that change will always take the same direction. We may see marked reversals as well as changes in the right direction.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend put any proposals by the Soviets for marginal reductions in their forces into the context of their budgetary situation, as outlined by their Prime Minister last week, which suggested that they will have considerable difficulty in reducing their defence expenditure to below 15 to 18 per cent. of GDP? Some sources suggest that Soviet expenditure on defence and security could be as high as 25 to 33 per cent. of their total national income.

Mr. Hamilton: I totally accept that my hon. Friend is right. We are grateful for the first, or the second, shot that the Soviet Union has made at assessing its defence expenditure, but we need to see a much greater breakdown of those figures to know exactly what they mean. In the meantime, we must be careful to keep up our own defences until we have seen positive reductions on the Soviet side.

Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent is credible.

Mr. Younger: For our nuclear deterrent to remain credible it must be kept effective and up-to-date. To this end we are looking at options to replace the free-fall bomb which currently provides this country's independent sub-strategic nuclear capability, and are in the process of modernising the strategic nuclear deterrent through Trident.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend think that the deterrent value of our nuclear weapons would be enhanced or reduced by pledging to scrap one of our Trident missiles, by pledging to reduce the number of warheads and by refusing to voice a clear and coherent policy? Is he aware of any party or of the leader of any party who voices such a ridiculous policy?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that no deterrent would work unless a potential attacker was convinced that there was a credible weapons system that could be effective in the circumstances of an attack. It is that which makes our deterrent credible and the Labour party is foolish to put itself in the position of having an incredible deterrent that it intends to abandon.

Mr. Madden: Does not the Secretary of State realise that an increasing number of British people recognise that the nuclear weapons here are not British and not independent and that they make Britain a nuclear target? Does he not also recognise that the vast majority of people around the world want to see the abolition of all nuclear weapons so that the people of this globe can live in peace without the threat of nuclear weapons?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. What people all round the world wish to see is the abolition of all war and the abolition of war is achieved by a credible deterrent that nobody would dare to attack.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: How effective would our nuclear deterrent be in the future if we were to cancel the fourth Trident submarine?

Mr. Younger: The Trident submarine force will succeed the Polaris force, which was originally to comprise five submarines but a previous Labour Government reduced it to four. If any idea of reducing the four submarines to three in the future would mean that we could not be sure at all times that there was at least one boat on station, and that therefore the deterrent would not be credible, any party advocating that is not fit to hold office.

Royal Naval Personnel (Radiation Checks)

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further radiation checks have been carried out on Royal Naval sailors and personnel exposed to nuclear weapons and reactors; and what were the findings.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Medical records of all naval personnel are analysed annually, and any health trends are identified. There have been no special surveys to determine whether there is any evidence of medical disorders arising from exposure of Royal Navy nuclear submarine personnel to radiation. However, routine medical surveillance is carried out for those Royal Naval personnel designated as radiation workers in accordance with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985.

Mr. Loyden: The Minister is ducking the question. Is it not a fact that, having resisted the proper claims for compensation for ex-service men affected by atom bomb tests, the Government are now ducking their responsibilities towards naval ratings serving in nuclear vessels?

Mr. Hamilton: It is very important indeed for the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that there has been no evidence whatever of Royal Naval personnel suffering from the dangerous effects of radiation. Indeed, there is a certain amount of evidence to show that the fact that they are in submarines means that they are protected from much of the radiation to which the rest of us are exposed.

Soviet Union (Fighting Vehicles)

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has as to whether the Soviets are dismantling their most modern armoured fighting vehicles.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: There is as yet no evidence that the Soviets are dismantling their most modern armoured fighting vehicles.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be more concerned with practice than with promise? We have had many promises in the last few years. What steps can we take to ensure that they are put into practice? On what forms of inspection will we insist?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole issue of verification will be an extremely important component of any agreement that is reached on conventional or nuclear reductions. That is an important element of the talks that are now going on.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Barry Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with former President Reagan.

Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, if confirmation be needed, her commitment to the European Community and her determination to fight for Britain and British interests within the Community? Will she accept from me that anybody who doubts that she will fight for Britain within the Community needs to have his head and his conscience examined?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall continue to fight for Britain's interests in a strong Community, which we believe is both in Britain's and in Europe's interest. We have fought successfully in the past and we shall continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister say what she intends to do to stop the crisis of confidence about the relationship between herself and her Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense—[Interruption.]—absolute nonsense. On Wednesday of last week, in the economic debate, out of which the Opposition came so poorly, the Chancellor set out the Government's position clearly and in some detail. He said:
Our overriding"—
I repeat, overriding—
objective is to bring inflation back down.
We will not be diverted from that course. As the Chancellor went on to say:
These are the policies that have successfully brought inflation down in the past, and will do so again.

Mr. Kinnock: If there is no difficulty about the relationship, why is the pound falling?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman reveals the depth of his ignorance.

Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister will help everybody by saying what she thinks should be done now to stop the pound sliding against the deutschmark.

The Prime Minister: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened, he would have heard the answer—[Interruption.]—when I answered his first question. I would add that towards the end of his speech, the Chancellor, when tackling the right hon. Gentleman, repeated:
Opposition leader asked what he would do. Opposition leader says, 'to cut a long story short, we don't know'."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 264–65.]

Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Franks: Having regard to Britain's success in creating more jobs than the rest of the Common Market combined, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that it might be more appropriate for the European Commission to be studying British policies rather than lecturing us on its proposals for a so-called social charter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The social charter would mean more regulation and put heavy additional burdens on industry. It would make our industry less competitive and mean that we would be less able to create the many jobs that we have created, far exceeding the record of any other country in Europe over the same period, and would result in moving jobs from Europe to Asia. We have attracted a great deal of inward investment into this country by a policy of enterprise and deregulation, and they trust us to pursue a sound economic course.

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 June 1989.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Scotland no single thing is more detested than she is, other than the poll tax, which is known in Scotland as Thatcher's poll tax? Is she further aware that 1 million Scots have not paid a penny and that that act of repudiation will be manifest on Thursday when her party is annihilated at the polls? Will she take a piece of advice and bring forward a Bill to repeal the poll tax, because her current legislation has no chance of working in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Whatever the people of Scotland think, they have taken advantage of the policies that this Government have pursued and they have the second highest standard of living in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman asked me to take advice from him. The answer is no, because he supported the Socialist policies that brought this country, including Scotland, to its knees. As he still supports those same policies I will never take advice from him. I believe that the people of Scotland are honourable enough to wish to pay a fair and reasonable amount towards the costs of local government through a community charge.

Mr. Marlow: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: As it would be better—[Interruption.]—for all of us if the balance of payments deficit were slightly lower, and as the largest factor in the deficit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—is the aggregate of the individual decisions to buy foreign cars—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—does my right hon. Friend agree that it is anti-social, selfish and unneighbourly to buy foreign cars when equally good British cars are available? What would she say to those self-centred economic vandals who in future persist, for reasons of bogus status or inverted patriotism, in buying foreign cars?

The Prime Minister: I agree that quite a bit of the adverse balance of payments deficit is due to the import of foreign cars. Britain's rate of growth has exceeded that on the Continent, which means that there is a good market for foreign cars in Britain. The current production of cars is above its 1979 level and is rising because we have attracted large overseas investment. It will continue to rise, not only for the companies already in this country but because of increased production at Nissan and Toyota. That will do the balance of payments a great deal of good because there will be more British-produced cars for people to buy.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: As the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer next to the Prime Minister is a sign of how seriously she is taking the foreign exchange movements in today's markets, is she aware that, for any given exchange rate, the level of interest rates must be set higher if there is uncertainty in the markets? Given the unprecedented relationship between the right hon. Lady and her Chancellor, is it not clear that she should end that uncertainty now by stating publicly whether she intends to back him or to sack him?

The Prime Minister: I have firmly indicated that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's policies are the policies of the Government. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to my previous reply he would have heard me precisely when I said that on Wednesday last week, in the economic debate—[Interruption.] If hon. Members do not listen they must hear it again, so that there is no room for doubt. The Chancellor set out the Government's position clearly and in some detail. He said:
Our overriding objective is to bring inflation back down. We will not be diverted from that course.
As the Chancellor went on to say:
Those are the policies that have successfully brought inflation down in the past, and will do so again."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 264.]
I could read out my right hon. Friend's whole speech—it was extremely good—but it might take rather a long time.

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the 31/4 million Hong Kong Chinese who might wish to come to the United Kingdom if the Armageddon referred to by their Governor takes place? If those people are given the right of abode in the United Kingdom, will


that also give them the right ultimately to settle anywhere within the European Community? If so, does not that make the issue of Hong Kong and the Chinese as much a matter for our European partners as for this Government, and another very good reason for ensuring that there is the maximum Conservative representation in the European Parliament following the polls on Thursday?

The Prime Minister: On the particulars that my hon. Friend raises, right of abode in the United Kingdom would not in itself allow people to settle elsewhere in the European Community, whether before or after 1992. I very much agree with him that, as a matter of political co-operation, we should look to our European partners for the strongest possible support for Hong Kong and its democratic way of life and prosperity, and look to other democratic countries for support.
I agree wholly with my hon. Friend's last point. We want the strongest possible representations and turnout on Thursday for the European Parliament elections.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister give a few moments today to consider the plight of young Chinese students who, because of their faith in democracy, are hiding for their lives in Peking and are waiting for the knock on the door that will take them to gaol or before the firing squad? Will she now tell the House what she will say if, in eight years' time those scenes are re-enacted in Hong Kong and involve British passport holders to whom she and the Labour party have refused to give refuge?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not have a monopoly of strong feeling on this matter. I think that throughout the House we feel equally as shocked and appalled as he does. That applies to both sides of the House. Just because he has been to Hong Kong and finds it easy to say things, because he has no responsibility—

Mr. Ashdown: Dishonourable.

The Prime Minister: —no responsibility whatsoever, does not mean that he feels any more strongly than we do. While he was away, we indicated that we would be very happy to seek more flexibility in the arrangements that we already have, particularly for those who have worked for the British Government, that we would look at the other immigration rules, and that we shall be bringing forward proposals in due course. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is really in our interests to keep Hong Kong prosperous, capitalist and a free society, which is the way in which it will be most valuable in 1997 and the way in which the Chinese will need to keep it going.

Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the right hon. Member use the word "dishonourable"?

Mr. Ashdown: I used the word "dishonourable" as I did—

Mr. Speaker: I ask the right hon. Member to withdraw that.

Mr. Ashdown: I make it clear that that word was not —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is a right hon. Member and the leader of his party, and I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Ashdown: The word was intended to refer to the Government's policy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Whatever the right hon. Member meant, would he please withdraw that remark?

Mr. Ashdown: So far as it may have been misconstrued—

Mr. Speaker: There are other hon. Members who wish to participate in Prime Minister's Questions. Will the right hon. Member withdraw the remark in relation to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Ashdown: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any connotation of that word in relation to the Prime Minister. It was referring to her policy and not to the right hon. Lady.

Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that among people in Hong Kong there is a real sense of grief and shock at the loss of so many young lives, as well as a growing sense of insecurity about their personal future? Will she take an early opportunity to show that we share that sense of loss and grief as well as being determined and capable of remaining responsible for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we gladly do so. In all parts of the House we feel exactly the same way about the people of Hong Kong, for whom we are fully responsible. We shall keep the administration going in the very best way possible until 1997. Then, as my hon. Friend knows, under the agreement we have reached, there will be a liaison committee that will continue for a further three years. In the meantime, we shall do all that we can to reassure the people of Hong Kong and to reaffirm our commitment to them and to their future.

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grocott: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will have noticed her failure today to give unequivocal backing to her Chancellor? Is she further aware that in last week's vote on the honours system, the only Cabinet Minister to vote in favour of honours for political services was the Chancellor? Does she know something that we do not?

The Prime Minister: I shall answer the important part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I give full, unequivocal and generous backing to my Chancellor, of whom I am very proud.

Botulism Outbreak

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent outbreak of botulism in Lancashire.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I regret to report to the House that there has been a serious outbreak of an extremely rare form of food poisoning in the area of Manchester, Blackpool and Preston and also in Clwyd in Wales. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in extending my sympathy to those suffering from this particularly unpleasant form of food poisoning. Currently, we are aware of 14 cases clinically diagnosed as botulism, 12 in Lancashire and two in Wales.
Inquiries at Youngs Fruits Ltd. of Folkestone, Kent, where the implicated hazelnut puree was manufactured, have shown that the company supplied eight other small dairies, in addition to Acorn Foods, and Forshaw, Littletown Farm Dairy named yesterday, with puree for use in the production of hazelnut yoghurt. The local public health authorities for the areas where these additional dairies are located have all been contacted. Environmental health officers are visiting these dairies and arranging for immediate withdrawal of hazelnut yoghurts manufactured by them. I should stress that no cases have been associated definitely with hazelnut yoghurt from those eight dairies. In addition, the possible association between one case and the consumption of hazelnut yoghurt produced by Forshaw, Littletown Farm Dairy which was referred to in statements yesterday is unclear at present.
The eight other dairies which received hazelnut products from the Folkstone farm are:

Lord Crathorne's Dairy, Cleveland;
Stockmeadow Farm Dairy, Staffordshire; 
Ann Forshaws Farmhouse Yoghurt, Preston; 
Madresfield Dairy, Worcestershire; 
Bodfari Foods Ltd, Chester;
Yieldingtree Packers, west midlands;
Grange Farm, Buckinghamshire; and
Battledean Farm, Gloucestershire.

Inquiries are still not complete, however, and my Department maintains its advice that, for the time being, the public should not eat any brand of hazelnut yoghurt.

Mr. Fearn: Can the Minister state exactly when the chief medical officer was informed of the outbreak? Can he also inform us when he first let the public know? He mentioned that the outbreak is confined to Lancashire and Wales, whereas information seems to be coming through now that one of the yoghurts was purchased in Gosport. Can he also state why the Bristol research centre on food safety is due to be closed and why five out of the seven horticultural stations are due for closure? Does he agree that the figure of food poisoning cases for this year is 60 per cent. up on last year and that his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are possibly to blame for this? Surely they are putting the botch in botulism.

Mr. Clarke: On wider issues than this, it is a pity that every time we have a disastrous and possibly tragic announcement people instantly leap to attribute blame,

although if blame is established it must be faced by those responsible. No blame has yet been attached to anybody and I believe that that is a sensible position to maintain.
The hon. Gentleman asked when action was first taken. We were first informed of the diagnosis on Friday evening of last week. My congratulations go to the neurologists in Manchester and to the communicable diseases surveillance centre for their prompt action in identifying and diagnosing this very rare condition. It takes some time to discover exactly what the cause of this most unusual neurological condition is and they were particularly good in spotting the correct diagnosis as quickly as they did.
Once we knew, of course, we began to take very prompt action over the weekend. A local warning was issued to the public by the authorities in Lancashire on Sunday 11 June on the advice of my Department. On Monday 12 June my Department issued further statements warning the public not to eat hazelnut yoghurt. Meanwhile, over the weekend, the two dairies mentioned specifically in the statement were contacted by the local public health authorities and all hazelnut yoghurt produced by those companies was withdrawn from sale. Since then the other eight dairies supplied with hazelnut products by Youngs Fruits Ltd. have been contacted and all their hazelnut yoghurts are being withdrawn from sale.
My Department has been communicating rapidly and instantly first with the environmental health officers in the case of the farms affected and then with those who serve the areas where people are distributing the products of those farms. We are today issuing general information to environmental health officers because they will require specific scientific advice to add to what we have already said.
As all hon. Members will know, very quickly over the weekend we began to issue the most prudent warning possible to the general public, who needed to be alerted first. That advice was that nobody should purchase any brand of hazelnut yoghurt until the position had become more clear.
The point about the Bristol research centre to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be answered in more detail by my right hon. Friends with responsibility for that, but I am informed that that research centre is not concerned with any work on food safety relevant to this outbreak. I see no connection between the horticultural centres and botulism in hazelnut yoghurt.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have made it clear that we are concerned about the increase in food poisoning generally and we have made repeated statements about the action that we are taking. I am glad to say, however, that our figures on this very rare type of food poisoning are exceptionally good. There were only nine outbreaks in this country in the period from 1922 to 1988. I compare that with 210 outbreaks in the United States of America between 1971 and 1985 and 115 outbreaks in France between 1978 and 1984. So, fortunately, we do not have a particularly serious history of botulism. Indeed, the last case in Britain was in 1987; and I am glad to say that we have not had a death from botulism since 1978, when there were four cases from which two deaths resulted.
This case is obviously serious. We are now establishing as rapidly as possible all the facts that can be established about the origin of botulism and we shall act in every possible way if any reason for further action is indicated as a result of our inquiries.

Dame Jill Knight: Are the experts yet able to say whether the trouble comes from a process in firms dealing with hazelnuts in this way, or whether there is a danger from the processing of hazelnuts generally?

Mr. Clarke: So far, we have good reason to believe that only the hazelnut products from the one firm at Folkestone are implicated in the outbreak. Obviously, botulism is widely prevalent in the environment and precautions have to be taken against it in the case of all sorts of food, although outbreaks are more often associated with meat and fish products. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to suggest any trouble with hazelnut products in general and at this stage we do not know precisely what has caused the outbreak associated with hazelnut products from one firm in Folkestone.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Secretary of State has been congratulating himself on speedy communication, but is he aware that the director of environmental health in Preston has, at each stage in the matter, received his information first from the press, not from the Department of Health? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to comment on that? Would he also care to ensure that the environmental health officers are the first to receive full information, and that, at all times, they have the resources necessary to do their work, as they are the first line of defence and the public depends on them?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether some people communicate with the press before they communicate with my Department, but all I will say is that as soon as my Department has received evidence it has communicated directly with the environmental health officers in the areas concerned. The hon. Lady will appreciate that we are talking about the weekend, and, for understandable reasons, it was not possible to raise all the directors of environmental health instantly. First, we went directly to those directors of environmental health in the areas where the farms concerned distributed the product, and, when we found where the product was being distributed to, we contacted the directors of environmental health there. Meanwhile, we have been giving public warnings to those who might purchase hazelnut yoghurt that they should not purchase or consume it.

Mr. Michael Jack: May I congratulate, through my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, those in Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde district health authority on the way in which they have handled the matter and the nursing care that the victims have received at the Victoria hospital in Blackpool? When does my right hon. and learned Friend expect that further public statements on the matter will be possible, and what advice will he give on post-production quality control for future monitoring of this type of problem.

Mr. Clarke: It is too soon to have a full picture of the outbreak, but, as far as I can see at the moment, everybody acted extremely promptly once the diagnosis was confirmed. I stress that this is a difficult diagnosis to make because the average doctor, including the average consultant, has never encountered a case in his career. We acted promptly once the situation became clear, as did those responsible in the Health Service, and they are caring

for the unfortunate victims in every possible way. At the moment, most of them are stable and the prognosis seems reasonably good.
On monitoring, the first step is to have a proper scientific investigation of exactly what went wrong so that we can discover what caused the growth of the organism in this particular product, and, in the light of that, to see what further steps have to be taken—for example, whether it will be necessary to strengthen the law.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the increase in convenience foods means an increase in the risks involved, which requires an increase in monitoring by more environmental health officers? What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman doing to increase the number of environmental health officers?

Mr. Clarke: The Government readily acknowledge that there is an increase in the incidence of food poisoning in this country, which is a matter of serious concern. It is quite possible that it is connected with the growth of convenience foods. For that reason, we set up the expert committee under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Richmond, vice-chancellor of Manchester university, to advise us generally on the microbiological safety of food, and we are taking every other step as well. However, the latest incident appears to involve a canned food, and canning is traditionally a pretty safe process that is not normally expected to give rise to the risk of botulism—certainly not in the case of a non-acidic food such as hazelnut puree. Nevertheless, every outbreak increases the sum of human knowledge, and we shall find out exactly what happened to allow that particular consignment of hazelnut puree to become infected.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: The general public will be reassured by my right hon. and learned Friend's comments today, by his prompt action, and by his recognition of the seriousness of the matter. Does he agree that the sooner there is informed research into why food poisoning is increasing and how risks may be reduced, the better for all of us?

Mr. Clarke: The overall expenditure on research connected with food poisoning is being maintained. If anything, it is increasing. It is always necessary to find useful avenues of research and I am sure that whenever we find them they will be given proper priority by those of my right hon. Friends responsible for the relevant research budgets. Beyond that, all I can say is that our record on botulism is very much better than that of most other countries, but obviously we shall make every effort to ensure that we sustain that good record.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State's advisers no doubt told him that clostridium botulinum is a spore-bearing organism and therefore is very likely to be found in canned food and is a danger when canning, especially meats. That is why the record in France is worse than in this country, because of the large amount of sausages and preserved meats, rather than heat-treated meats, that the French consume. The case in Wales that the Secretary of State described probably occurred in my constituency or in its vicinity, and I should like his assurance that he has liaised with the Secretary of State for Wales.
I should like an assurance also that environmental health officers, who are struggling to keep at bay a tide of food poisoning outbreaks in this country, will have the resources and the ability to stem that tide in future. The current case is relevant because it involves small outlets that were supplied with a large amount of infected food product. Only environmental health officers can possibly help to prevent a recurrence in future.

Mr. Clarke: I hear what the hon. Gentleman, who I believe has professional expertise in the field, says. I am advised that the very much higher incidence of botulism in other countries is associated particularly with the home preservation of meat, poultry, game, fish, vegetables, and some kinds of raw fish. I do not believe that canning usually gives rise to that particular danger to any marked degree. We will find out what went wrong with the canning process at Youngs Fruits Ltd.—if anything did go wrong—and then we shall all be better informed.
Environmental health officers have a vital task, and my Department communicates with them promptly and effectively as soon as it has the scientific basis for giving the advice that EHOs require. The question of resources devoted to environmental health officers is primarily a matter for local government, but obviously resources need to be applied consistent with the risk that the public appears to face.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that there are two cases in my constituency, and, on its behalf and on behalf of the north-west, I thank him and his Department for the speed with which they acted over the weekend, which is always a difficult time. Radio and television bombarded us with many warnings, which were most helpful and surely saved many people from being poisoned.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that people have been poisoned since time immemorial and that poisoning will continue for as long as diseases find clever ways of beating us and our cures? Nevertheless, we thank the doctors and other medics for acting so quickly. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the parents of children and the adults who have been affected that they have a very reasonable chance of a full recovery, and that there is every reason to believe that the disease—which is a killer disease—will be contained?

Mr. Clarke: I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) yesterday. I was meant to be campaigning in connection with the European elections, but I found myself addressing television and radio reporters and reinforcing our warnings to the public about the consumption of hazelnut yoghurt. The media in the north-west gave wide coverage to my warnings and those of the Government's chief medical officer. Everyone acted promptly, and I again congratulate the medical staff who diagnosed the problem and those who gave the treatment. Fortunately, although it is a dangerous disease, its treatment has advanced considerably in recent years. The news on the present patients is as reassuring as can be hoped for.

Mr. John D. Taylor: To reassure the public, can the Minister say for certain that the source of the problem is hazelnut puree and not any of the milk products involved? Do any of the firms which he has named manufacture any other flavours of yoghurt, and, if so, are they still available on the market?

Mr. Clarke: We have strong reason to believe that the hazelnut puree is responsible for the outbreak. That particular canned hazelnut puree is used only in yoghurts. In fact, yoghurt is mentioned in the title under which it is sold. Therefore, at the moment there is no reason to believe that any other type of yoghurt or dairy product is implicated in the outbreak. Obviously, in all cases of food poisoning we encounter great difficulties when trying to trace the exact source and cause. All we can do is to carry on giving the public the full extent of our knowledge as it unfolds.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I press the Secretary of State to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones): what action has been taken by the Welsh Office in response to the cases in Clwyd? Has it provided advice to the public?
The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the figures which he quoted to the House confirm that this is the most serious outbreak of botulism for decades. Given the alarming increase in food poisoning, when will the House see the regulations on food hygiene, which have been lying in the Department in draft form for two years this month?
I wish to take up the Secretary of State's reference to the Bristol food research laboratory which he maintained was not carrying out research into food poisoning. Will he acknowledge that that was partly because last year the Government cut the grant for research into salmonella food poisoning? When will the Government start to reverse their irresponsible cuts on research into food safety?
In response to the concerns expressed about environmental health officers, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there are currently 430 unfilled vacancies for environmental health officers? Will the Government reverse the cuts in training places which have partly contributed to the national shortage?
The Secretary of State said that it was far too early to attribute blame. Will he at least acknowledge that this is one time when he cannot blame the consumer? Shoppers need not another leaflet from his Department giving them advice, but action to ensure food safety. When will they receive it?

Mr. Clarke: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a duty to oppose. However, when discussing serious issues of this kind, he should not scratch about to find faintly associated causes of complaint, which is what he is doing. The new responsible official Opposition might join in the public warning. I would hope that any Labour Government would, like this Government, speed up efforts to find out what has caused the outbreak.
We are in close touch with the Welsh Office. The Government's chief medical officer is responsible to the Government, and our advice was addressed to the entire population of the United Kingdom. The advice is that, until further notice, people should not eat any brand of hazelnut yoghurt, and that advice is sustained.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the food hygiene regulations which he mentioned have nothing to


do with this outbreak of botulism. He also knows that, as a result of the consultation, we are seeking to resolve the conflicting scientific and other advice which we have received and will produce the regulations as soon as possible. I have already talked about Bristol, where the research station is not engaged in food safety research—

Dr. David Clark: That simply is not true.

Mr. Clarke: That must be taken up with the responsible Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have to deal with that—[Interruption.]
I remain reasonably confident—I look to my right hon. Friend for advice—that it is doing no research of any kind—relevant to botulism.
I have already dealt with the question of the number of environmental health officers. The resources devoted to them are a matter for local government. We all appreciate that there is an increasing problem of food poisoning in this country, and local authorities, like everyone else, must address their priorities in that connection.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that this was the worst outbreak of the decade. That sounds sensational until we recognise that there have been no deaths from botulism in that time, and that the country has a singularly good record on botulism in general. The hon. Gentleman should make sure that the points that he makes on this particularly difficult issue are well founded.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statement by the Home Secretary.

Commercial Television

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of commercial television. I apologise for its length; a good many complicated matters need to be taken together.
The White Paper proposed a two-stage procedure for awarding licences for Channels 3 and 5 under which applicants would first have to pass a quality threshold—consisting of positive programme and consumer protection requirements—and would then go on to offer financial tenders. The Independent Television Commission would be required to select the highest bidder.
Many of those who commented on the White Paper expressed concern that those proposals might lead to a loss of quality in programming. We recognise that concern, and propose to strengthen the quality threshold. We do not consider that it would be right to do so by adding more detailed requirements in the legislation to supply specific types of programme. We therefore propose to strengthen the quality threshold by broadening the third positive requirement in paragraph 6.11 of the White Paper to read:
to provide a reasonable proportion of programmes (in addition to news and current affairs) of high quality, and to provide a diverse programme service calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
It will be for applicants to interpret that combined quality and diversity test in drawing up their programme proposals. Those who fail to satisfy the ITC that they can meet the requirement will not have their financial bids considered.
A number of suggestions have been made about the form that the financial bid should take. The chairman of the IBA proposed that it should comprise a sum fixed by the ITC and a bid by the applicant of a percentage of advertising revenue. I support that combination of elements but, to make the bidding process clearer, propose that they should be reversed. Accordingly, the ITC will fix a percentage of net advertising or subscription revenue for each licence to form the minimum sale price. Applicants will then be required to bid a lump sum, which they will pay in addition if successful. For successful applicants, both sums will be paid annually over the period of the licence to avoid the imposition of debt burdens on licensees.
Applicants will also be required to post a bond with their tender applications. Successful bidders will be required to add to that an amount which, together with the first, will add up to a substantial performance bond. This requirement will strengthen the enforcement powers of the ITC, making them stronger and more flexible than those of the IBA now. Those who fail to meet their programme promises given at the quality threshold stage will stand to lose a proportion of the bond.
We have considered carefully the arguments about the criteria for deciding tenders. I do not believe that at the tender stage, before it is clear to whom the licences will be awarded and before the nature of any network arrangement is known, it will be possible for the ITC to make fine distinctions between the quality of programme service offered by different applicants, all of whom will have passed the strengthened quality hurdle that I have


announced today. We must avoid a return to the opaque and sometimes arbitrary selection procedures of the past, but some flexibility needs to be written into the procedure.
We propose, therefore, that the ITC should be required in the normal course to accept the highest bid, but that it should have a power, in exceptional circumstances, to select a lower bid. This power would operate only in exceptional circumstances, the ITC would be required to give its full reasons, and exercise of the power would be subject to judicial review. In addition, there would be an exceptional power for the Home Secretary, acting on the recommendation of the ITC, to veto the selection of the highest bid if its funding came from a source that was undesirable in the public interest.
The White paper proposed that in addition to the sum bid at tender applicants would have to make a levy payment to the Exchequer. The proposals I have just announced for the fixing of a proportion of advertising or subscription revenue as a part of the tender price overtake our original proposals for a levy. Successful candidates will have only to pay the two-part tender price I have outlined. There will be no levy in addition.
Some people have wondered whether the Government would impose a moratorium on takeovers at the beginning of 1993 and whether they would insist on compulsory networking for Channel 3. The Government's view on both issues has not changed since the publication of the White Paper. I understand that the chairman of the IBA is considering permitting takeovers in the period from 1990 to 1993, subject to the normal anti-monopoly rules and bearing in mind our proposals for the régime after 1992. It would not in these circumstances be either sensible or necessary to impose a moratorium on takeovers thereafter. Networking will be a matter for the Channel 3 companies themselves to decide without Government compulsion. Basic fair trading laws should ensure that no companies are excluded unfairly from any networking arrangements. We shall consider whether any further provisions are needed in the legislation to regulate the operation of any new network system in the interests of free access and fair competition.
We have received a number of representations on behalf of the 4 million viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing. We agree that particular provision should be made for them. We have therefore decided that Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees should be required to provide teletext sub-titling for some of the programmes in their schedules. They should provide more than is provided at present.
The White Paper proposed that Channel 5 should be shared between at least two licensees. In the light of the start-up costs of the new channel and the competition it will face from the established terrestrial channels, we have now decided that Channel 5 should form a single licence. It will thus be better equipped to compete with the existing terrestrial channels.
Similarly, the White Paper proposed that there should be a separate night hours licence for Channel 3. Many of those who responded to the White Paper doubted whether a separate night hours licence would be viable, so we have looked at this again. We want to ensure, so far as possible, that the night hours are fully used. I accept the argument that they may be better exploited commercially if they are

linked with services provided at a more commercially attractive part of the broadcasting day. We have therefore decided not to disturb the present situation under which the night hours may remain connected with the peak viewing period. However, we will review the position if we find that the night hours are not being fully used. Under our proposals, the ITC will be free to allocate licences for other times of the day, such as a breakfast time service.
The White Paper proposed that the ITC would be responsible for the map—for the geographical division of Channel 3 into regions. This has been generally welcomed. The Government have noted with understanding the statement of the chairman-designate of the ITC, Mr. George Russell, that he would see advantage, if possible, in retaining the existing regions.
I turn finally to Channel 4 and S4C, the Welsh channel. The White Paper made clear the Government's intention to maintain the remit of Channel 4 while at the same time providing for the selling of its advertising separately from that on Channel 3. We have considered the comments we have received on the three options in the White Paper, and in particular the helpful report by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I have written today to the Chairman of the Committee expressing the Government's gratitude for its work on Channel 4 and setting out the Government's decisions. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library.
The Government have decided that it would not be feasible at the present time for Channel 4 to become an independent commercial company competing with the other broadcasters if, as we think essential, it is to retain its remit. The financial outlook for Channel 4 remains uncertain with the prospect of new competition. We believe that the requirement in addition to provide a return for shareholders in a private company could put too much pressure upon Channel 4 finances and place its remit in jeopardy. But we see some difficulty in Channel 4 continuing to be owned by the authority which would be responsible for regulating its output—the ITC—and we believe that any financial underpinning given to the channel should be carefully circumscribed to provide clear incentives for cost-efficiency.
We have therefore decided that after 1993, if Parliament agrees, Channel 4 should become a public trust which will be licensed by the ITC and will continue to provide the service set out in the special remit. Channel 4 would sell its own advertising, and would be subject to a baseline budget of 14 per cent. per annum of terrestrial net advertising revenue. The baseline could be amended in secondary legislation. If the channel's revenue fell below the baseline, the difference would be funded by the ITC to a maximum of 2 per cent. of terrestrial net advertising revenue levied on the Channel 3 companies, but any surplus revenues above the baseline would be shared equally between Channel 3 and Channel 4. The trust would be required to hold its share of any surplus revenues to be used as a first call if there were deficits in later years. To reduce the need for a call on the guarantee, the ITC would be empowered to require cross announcement of programmes between Channel 3 and Channel 4. Complementary scheduling would be possible, but would not be a requirement. The Channel 4 licence would run for 10 years, but the arrangements would be reviewed after seven. I believe that is a satisfactory way of securing the future of Channel 4 with its present remit.
The White Paper concluded that the arrangements for the Welsh fourth channel should remain unchanged. Some have argued that it would not be consistent with the new and more free approach to regulation for the channel to be funded by a direct subscription on the commercial companies. The position is particularly anomalous in Scotland where the ITV companies are required to finance Welsh programmes as a first call on their resources even before they make provision for their own Gaelic speakers. The Government are sympathetic to these concerns, and have decided to make a small technical change to the funding arrangements for S4C. In future, S4C revenues will not be charged as a first call on the commercial companies but will be funded out of the proceeds of the tender through the ITC.
My statement covers most of the major decisions on the future commercial television system following the publication of the White Paper. We shall need to make announcements on the remaining issues, including the key question of transmission and the future of broadcasting in Gaelic, before long. Then we shall draft the Bill.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Home Secretary and the House will understand if I do not respond in detail to the mini White Paper today. Clearly we shall return to the issue in the autumn when we consider the Bill.
The revised proposal for awarding the licences for Channel 3 and Channel 5 are no more than a figleaf behind which the Home Secretary seeks to cover his humiliation at the hands of the Prime Minister, aided by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In most important respects, the bidding for the licences has barely changed from that set out in paragraph 6·9 of the White Paper which stated:
there is no longer the same need for quality of service to be prescribed by legislation or regulatory fiat.
All that the Home Secretary has said today is that the ITC can have reserve powers to reject the highest bid, while explaining why. In my view that amounts to no more than a tiny teaspoon to bale out a well-holed ship. Is it not the very least that could he done to meet the statement made by Mr. George Russell that unless the ITC had these powers, he would find his position untenable? I commend Mr. Russell on his stand on behalf of the viewers' best interests.
The rewording of the so-called positive requirement in paragraph 6.11 does no more than express in 35 words what took just 16 words in the White Paper. Simply adding the phrase "high quality" does nothing to guarantee that it will be delivered, nor does anything else that the Home Secretary said today. In any event, what is a reasonable proportion and who will decide it?
The statement is light on what exact amounts of money are to be provided by bidders who deliver the range and types of programme which the bid promises. The Home Secretary went out of his way to make it clear that he did not regard that to be necessary. The changes in the financial arrangements at least acknowledge that Channel 3 will face increasing competition from satellite services and are simpler and clearer than the original proposals.
I am still uncertain about what the term "financially sound" means. It seems that it will mean no more than checking on whether the cash behind the bid comes from drugs or vice. That is the problem. The Home Secretary's statement, like the White Paper, is too much about cash

and not sufficiently concerned with ensuring that the cash on the table will deliver real choice and quality in terms of range and standards. Will the Home Secretary confirm that bidders will not have to guarantee to programme current affairs in main viewing programmes? Is it not the case that the same remains true of children's and religious programmes?
It is unacceptable to Opposition Members—and to some Conservative Members—that an individual should be able to own two Channel 3 licences. The Opposition believe that one person should be able to own only one franchise if there is to be real diversity in the new system.
I welcome the requirement for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to provide teletext subtitling for some programmes for the 4 million people who are deaf or hard of hearing. I hope that that will become mandatory for all news and current affairs programmes, and for most, rather than some, programmes eventually.
I also welcome the decision not to separate off the night hours. It was patently not sensible for the Home Secretary to propose in the White Paper to take the night hours away from the BBC while requiring it to maximise its subscription services.
Becoming a trust is the least worst option for Channel 4, although we would have preferred the status quo. What is disappointing is that despite the Government's tribute to Channel 4's "striking success" their proposals are unlikely to provide enough stability for it to meet its needs in the face of stiffening competition in terrestrial and satellite services.
Even after the statement, the Government's proposals will do no more than achieve lower quality, lower standards, less public responsibility and fewer regions within Channel 3. The proposals will not use technological change to bring about more real choice. The proposals are simply a route to undermining what the White Paper called—I hope not sarcastically—the "rich heritage" of British broadcasing. The statement reveals that the vandals have won—at least under this Government.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap into which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) always falls. He has chosen to comment on inaccurate press reports about our proposals even though, by the conventions of the House, he has had a bit of time—not long, I admit—to study the proposals themselves. The hon. Gentleman has talked as though all the press reports were true. The next step, if precedent is to be followed, is that Mr. Des Wilson will write a learned article suggesting that I stimulated all the inaccurate press reports to lure the hon. Gentleman into the trap into which he has fallen.
The hon. Gentleman has ignored the three changes made on the quality threshold in response to comments on the White Paper. First, the quality threshold has been stiffened so that it is similar to the proposal in the Broadcasting Act 1981. Secondly, there will be the exceptional power of the ITC. It is exceptional—I have explained the circumstances—to award a franchise to other than the highest bidder. Thirdly, and most importantly, there will be the performance bond, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention. It will give the ITC a power that the present Independent Broadcasting Authority does not have, which is a flexible and powerful way to enforce the promises that have been made. The ITC will no longer face the criticism that all it can do is to


remove the franchise, which is a power, like nuclear weapons, that is difficult to use. It will have conventional weapons with which to enforce promises.
The hon. Gentleman made two points about the news. It is clear in the White Paper that news will be a requirement and will have to be included in main time. Current affairs will also be a requirement, but there is no specific requirement about when current affairs programmes should be shown. It would not be reasonable to stipulate that in legislation.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed our announcement about subtitling for the deaf. It is proposed that Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees should, in the first year of the licence, provide 10 per cent. more hours of subtitling than was achieved on average by the ITV companies in the previous year. The ITC will thereafter set a reasonable target each year for an increase in subtitling.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a busy day ahead of us with no fewer than 120 groupings of amendments and a ten-minute Bill. I shall allow questions on this important matter to continue until quarter to five, but then we must move on.

Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend accept my welcome for his proposals, especially for the flexibility that he has shown? As many of the things that he has announced today are new, will he be open to further consultation on them with interested parties or are they now final until they are encapsulated in a Bill in the autumn?

Mr. Hurd: We have tried to listen, as was our duty, to the reactions to the White Paper and to reach a balanced reaction to them. Of course, people will continue to express views in the months ahead and it will ultimately be for both Houses of Parliament to reach conclusions. To that extent, our ears can never be shut. We have reached the conclusions that we think are sensible.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Home Secretary has made a most important statement to which he said that there were three main aspects, but I have a long list. Is there some way in which we can have a debate on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because we cannot go through it in the next half hour and believe that we shall then have dealt with it?
Professor Peacock, who produced the Peacock report was concerned about the issue of competitive tendering in the original proposals. Has he been consulted? Does the Home Secretary think that Professor Peacock would be content with the changes that the Home Secretary has made?

Mr. Hurd: On the first point, we have had a debate on the White Paper, and there will of course, be long debates on the Bill when it comes before the House. I considered whether to do this in a written statement but the Opposition would have protested if I had. I apologise again for the length of what I had to say.
Professor Peacock commented last week on the basis of press reports. We were in touch with him later in the week

to explain that those reports were so incomplete as to be misleading. It is now for him to say what he thinks about the proposals.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: May I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said about Conservative Members welcoming the flexibility that our right hon. Friend has shown and the modifications that he has made? While obviously we want to follow through and work out the implications, especially of competitive tendering, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that those of us who come from areas with small, independent companies are still concerned because the present system has not worked badly in reflecting the quality and the character of those areas and we are left feeling nervous that price may still be the ultimate determinant of who gets the tender? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the financial position of those companies when compared with some of the large companies that serve the much more populated areas of this country? The possibility of a dual franchise, which would make competition more difficult, given the resources of those companies, means that we remain concerned. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point a little further in relation to competitive tendering and price being the ultimate determinant.
Finally, we in Scotland very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is removing the burden on companies in Scotland that have to pay for subsidising Welsh programmes when they already finance Gaelic programmes in Scotland. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for that.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know of his anxieties because he has expressed them to me. We have had very much in our minds the anxieties of some of the smaller companies. That is very important. The decision has not yet been taken about transmission costs, which weigh heavily on a company such as Grampian. When we move forward to that consideration, we shall bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Home Secretary accept that he has no need to apologise for the length of his statement, but much more need to apologise for the fact that it was nothing more than a vacuous homily? There was no substance in it. Why did he speak about "substantial, reasonable proportions"? Why did he not tell us what the performance bond will be? Why did he not say specifically that there will be no dual ownership? Why does he not say specifically that quality will be the real test when awarding the franchises, not cash?

Mr. Hurd: I thought that my statement was so precise and detailed as to verge on the tedious, but not on the empty. There is of course a limit to the extent to which Parliament or a Bill should decide all these matters in detail. Parliament is not the regulatory authority. We must leave a certain amount to the ITC, and I have explained exactly what that is.
The statement that I made some weeks ago about ownership was of a tight regime corresponding to the views expressed by many people, including the Opposition. We do not believe that it is right for the same franchisee, the same holder, to own two large companies or to own two companies that are next door to each other. But we do not exclude—I do not think it would be reasonable to do


so, if we want the small companies to survive—the possibility of someone holding one large and one small franchise.

Mr. John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend has received much advice about the future of broadcasting, not least from the Select Committee on Home Affairs and its report on the future of broadcasting and the funding of Channel 4. I thank him for his generous remarks about my Committee's report and for the pleasure it gives members of the Committee to know that the financial guarantee is to be there to enable Channel 4 to continue with its diverse programming and important remit. May I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on why he has chosen a trust as opposed to option two?
In respect of Channel 3 licences, I appreciate his comments about preserving diversity and the tests that he now proposes. Will he agree that the reserve power given to the ITC must be firmly defined it it is to be effective?

Mr. Hurd: To answer my hon. Friend's final point, the House will wish to look at the wording carefully. We have not yet put it in statutory language. I have made it clear that it should be exceptional and that it should be public. One of the problems with the present system is that the decisions are like those of the oubliette—at one moment everybody is there, with the franchise holders all together, and at the next moment somebody has disappeared with no reason or explanation given and no redress. That is not, in our view, a satisfactory system.
To answer my hon. Friend's question about Channel 4, it was felt that there was a difficulty, familiar in other contexts, between having the same agency—in this case the ITC—owning and regulating Channel 4. So there should be a separation between ownership and regulation. But, equally, we decided, partly in the light of the report of my hon. Friend's Committee, that it would not be sensible to go for total privatisation—that is, option one—so we happened on the concept of a trust, which I think fits the need.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is it not a fact that in the spheres of programme quality, diversity of choice and regional sensitivity the fatal flaw in what the Home Secretary has announced today, and to which others have referred, is the lack of definition in his statement? Phrases such as "public interest," "exceptional circumstances" and "quality thresholds" are not clearly defined. Indeed, in one case he tells us that they are to be the subject of judicial review. There is not much safeguard in that in terms of the awarding of franchises and the upholding of commitments given.
I particularly underscore the anxiety expressed by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about the future of the Scottish regional companies, for which there will be little reassurance because the Home Secretary merely expresses some sympathy for the sentiment that we should retain existing regions, if possible.
The bottom line of the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that the only cast-iron guarantees he has given are in terms of cash for the Treasury and business for the lawyers, with the interests of the broadcasters and viewers being out of sight, if not out of mind.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He knows that the phrases which he criticises are used

constantly in the House and in Acts of Parliament. They are familiar to regulatory authorities and to the courts. The House will of course want to look at the phrases, and that is natural, but there is nothing particularly obscure or opaque about them.
As for the map, we propose—I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that it is not sensible for the House or for the law of the land to set in concrete for ever the map of broadcasting companies. It is not there now in the law and it would be absurd to suppose that it would be sensible to put it in primary legislation. It should be left, as we propose, to the ITC, and therefore I chose my words carefully. We noticed with understanding that the chairman-elect of the ITC said—I think the hon. Gentleman would agree—that, as far as possible, he sees advantage in retaining the present map.

Sir Giles Shaw: I warmly welcome the majority of the statement. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on listening so fully to all the representations. That is most welcome, especially in the context of matters such as broadcasting.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend three brief questions. The first relates to the quality of assessment, which is now so crucial in the awarding of contracts. As he did not mention regional commitment, regional programming or regional viewers, will he comment on them? Secondly, with regard to the ITC's reserve power under a performance bond, will the bond be of a significant size relative to the areas in which it is located—for example, a smaller bond for the smaller companies in the smaller areas? Thirdly, has my right hon. Friend given any further thought to the ownership of transmitters and transmission? He will recall that that is a matter of considerable concern. While I accept the present point of view, there are considerable overlaps in the existing map to which, quite frankly, the transmission issue is linked.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose three questions are much to the point. The White Paper already gives a clear commitment to the regional content of Channel 3 programmes. What I announced today was in addition to that commitment and, for the first time, it includes a proportion of regional production. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the size of the bond will be fixed by the ITC, but it will vary according to the franchise under discussion. We are considering transmission costs and the system of transmission. When we have decided what should be included in the Bill, I shall inform the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is the Home Secretary aware that he has said nothing to allay the genuine fear of virtually all those involved in broadcasting that he is presiding over a virtual collapse of programme standards? How will what he has proposed improve programme standards in any way? Will the competing companies have to publish their programme proposals in detail? How will the controlling mechanism work? How can it be that he rejects outright commercialism for Channel 4 as being in conflict with programme standards, but appears to think that outright and unbridled commercialism for Channel 3 will guarantee programme standards?

Mr. Hurd: I shall not repeat my answers to previous questions because the hon. Gentleman is simply repeating


what his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said and to which I have responded.
On the question of quality threshold, an applicant will come forward and after the ITC has given an illustration of what variety and diversity should mean for that particular franchise the applicant can put forward his proposals. The ITC will then judge whether the quality threshold has been passed, and, if so, the undertakings that have been given will be incorporated in the licence.
The question of commercialism and programme standards is a matter of balance. We are not suggesting that every channel should be like the BBC or Channel 4. We aim to strike a balance, with the BBC—which has not been dealt with today—remaining as the cornerstone, and with Channel 4 preserving its remit—under the arrangements that I announced today it can clearly preserve its remit, and that has been the issue—although with a lighter touch and an increased choice with respect to Channels 3 and 5. That is the balance that we seek to strike.

Mr. John Maples: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has gone a long way towards meeting objections both about the auction process for Channel 3 and the future of Channel 4? I hope that he will not pay too much attention to the Opposition's churlish and grudging response; they seem to be incapable of taking "yes" for an answer.
Will my right hon. Friend deal with one point that was not dealt with in his statement? Has he given any further thought to cross-media ownership and the restrictions on that with respect to Channels 3 and 5?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. and hon. Friends in general for their reception to matters to which many of them have devoted a great deal of thought. In a written answer last month I set out a rather complicated set of proposals on cross-media ownership, to which I refer my hon. Friend. If I were to attempt to repeat them out of my head, I might get some of them wrong. We accept the need for tight controls and restrictions on cross-ownership not only between holders of terrestrial franchises, but between holders of terrestrial franchises and the press.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Home Secretary aware that the international hucksters will laugh at the idea of forfeiting a substantial bond? Is he aware that what he has announced is exactly what happened with TV-am —the ITV breakfast-time programme—which was launched with a fanfare of big names and all sorts of promises but rapidly deteriorated into trivia and trash once the Australians took it over? That is what will happen again. Faced with the prospect of putting on quality programmes that will not sell much advertising or trash that will, the hucksters will immediately forfeit the substantial bond to keep the franchises.

Mr. Hurd: Then they will not keep the franchises.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the discarding of the proposals to impose a levy will be most welcome and that the proposed alternative financial arrangements will be much more acceptable to the ITV companies? Will he accept, too, that

the exceptional circumstances provision, under which, and only under which, any bid would be rejected by the ITC, will go a long way to meet many of the fears that have been expressed?
I shall ask my right hon. Friend three quick questions. Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), when my right hon. Friend defines the legislation for the quality threshold will he include specific reference to certain kinds of programming, particularly children's programmes?
Secondly, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has announced the establishment of a public trust rather than any of the previous suggested options for Channel 4. However, does he really think that it is right for the independent companies, which will no longer have any vested interest in Channel 4, to have to underwrite Channel 4?
Thirdly, the announcement concerning ITV night hours is most welcome. May we hope that that line of thought will be extended to BBC night hours?

Mr. Hurd: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says about children's programmes. I believe that it will be difficult to specify in legislation all the different kinds of programmes which could make up variety, quality and diversity and, therefore, a good deal will have to be left to the ITC. However, that is a matter to which we shall certainly return.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about Channels 3 and 4. It is right that there should be some underwriting —limited, as we propose—of Channel 4 to ensure that the remit can be maintained. It is reasonable that the ITC should, as I suggested, draw to that limited extent on Channel 3. My hon. Friend will have noticed, however, that the safeguards are there.
I know my hon. Friend's view on the night hours, which is a matter that needs now to be considered. We have had many reactions to the original proposal, to which we must now turn our attention, and give the House our views when we can.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome generally the Home Secretary's statement. It emphasises that, first, there will be greater transparency in the way in which licences are allocated to firms, and, secondly, that there will be greater competition. Will the Secretary of State consider the system that applies in the Republic of Ireland whereby those who—[Interruption]—yes, I am recommending something from the Republic of Ireland—whereby those who apply for licences must present their case and answer questions in public before the licensing authority so that the public at large have a greater idea as to the basis on which a licence is allocated?
On the question of competition, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that what has been said by colleagues from Scotland on both sides of the House about regional problems apply in Northern Ireland? We would not like to see dual ownership. We would like to see emerge a company that is truly representative of the traditions of Northern Ireland—Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist.

Mr. Hurd: I have much sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Ulster television, which is important to the life of the Province. I note what he says about public hearings, but I am not sure whether it would be sensible to embody that as a requirement in legislation.

Mr. John Greenway: Is it not clear from my right hon. Friend's statement that this is a Government who bring forward radical proposals for the benefit of consumers, take stock of comment from interested parties, listen and bring forward a reformed package in light of the representations made? I am sure that what my right hon. Friend has said will end a great deal of uncertainty within ITV currently.
Is my right hom. Friend aware that last week, at a symposium hosted by the Independent Television Association and chaired by Sir Alan Peacock, the concept of having a franchise awarded by competitive auction was considered feasible, provided there were adequate safeguards to prevent over-bidding? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements that he has introduced will achieve that objective? Does he further agree that, with the Channel 3 franchises, it will be much better to leave maximum flexibility in the hands of the ITC when drafting the legislation rather than specifying far too much and thus creating a straitjacket?
With regard to Channel 4, has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to the question of cross-promotion of Channels 3, 4 and 5?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks, with which I agree.
We need to consider the cross-promotion point, but it is difficult to lay it down in legislation. I have said something about the cross announcements that will be necessary between Channels 3 and 4.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow 10 minutes more on this statement. I shall do my best to call those hon. Members who are rising, providing they ask brief questions.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I recognise that the Home Secretary has listened to and even accepted much of the critical evidence he received on the White Paper. He has failed to act, however, on some of the crucial points precisely because he still seems reluctant to define his terms. Will he tell the House what the exceptional circumstances are under which the chairman of the ITC can refuse the highest bid?
On specific programme requirements, does my right hon. Friend accept that the only way to ensure quality and diversity of programmes, covering children's programmes, documentaries, religious and educational programmes, is the current written detailed requirements? The general terms that he is continuing to propose are wholly inadequate and will not ensure such quality and diversity.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that I can define exceptional circumstances, and it would be absurd to do so in advance. The House will note that there is a double instrument of control; an instrument in the hands of the ITC, and an instrument in the hands of the Secretary of State acting on the recommendations of the ITC. The Secretary of State could act if, for example, money went into a bid which did not amount to foreign control—we could deal with that otherwise—but which might generate interests that were clearly hostile to this country or might mean that, in a particular part of our country, arrangements would be set up that would be clearly contrary to the public interest. It is reasonable to have both instruments.
There will be nothing vague in the franchise terms. They will be worked out in some detail and written down. The ITC will have substantially greater powers than the existing IBA to ensure that those terms are effectively enforced.

Mr. John Redwood: Does the Home Secretary agree that during the winter ITV1 took a lot of the market share away from BBC1 through investment in good quality drama and that that was a good commercial decision as it enabled ITV to sell its programmes abroad? Does he agree that the conclusion to be drawn is that there is no necessary conflict between quality of programming and the pursuit of commercial opportunity? With the growing sophistication of the audience, the two often go together.

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. I am familiar with the argument that some of the ITV companies, if driven too hard, will spend much less money and produce cheap programmes only. I noticed from press reports that when those companies began to feel the wind a bit their reaction was to spend more on higher quality programmes.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Home Secretary accept that our criticisms are not churlish but are based on the fact that some of us have television organisations within our constituencies? We are well aware that when the right hon. Gentleman lined up with George Russell and the ITV companies in their criticisms of the auction system, he was attacked by Right-wing ideologues, clustered around 10 Downing street. Despite his agonised squeal, "Get your tanks off my lawn", he has lost the battle, even though he has won some small victories which he has announced with great pride this afternoon.
In the main, the questions that he has said will be asked are these: "Have you got the capital?", Not "Have you got the talent?, and "What are you going to make?" which is 28·5 per cent. not good programmes.

Mr. Hurd: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the very workmanlike discussions which we have had inside Government on this matter, nor, I think, will the House when hon. Members have studied what I have said. The hon. Gentleman misses the essential point. It is a double process. An application will come forward with programme plans and ideas to pass the quality and variety threshold. It is only after an applicant has done that—and it will be more difficult, it will be a higher test, as a result of today's announcement—that the length of his purse will become relevant.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the franchise going to the highest bidder subject to a much strengthened overriding quality test and the ability of the Independent Television Commission not to award the contract to the highest bidder if it feels that that bidder is incapable of delivering the quality, we shall have a much simpler, clearer, fairer and more straightforward system of awarding franchises than the present somewhat opaque and oblique system? Do not the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon demonstrate that he has clearly listened to what people have been saying over the past few weeks?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to listen; I have not had very much option but to listen. We certainly have listened hard


and tried to respond generally. I agree with what my hon. Friend said and would simply add something about the performance bond, which has not appeared in any of the press leaks. It will be a very important technique in helping the ITC to enforce quality.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The announcements which the Home Secretary has made today are all very welcome and in the right direction, but the right hon. Gentleman will never get to the correct destination unless he abandons the original assumptions of the broadcasting White Paper. Praise has been lavished upon the Home Affairs Select Committee's report, which says that both ITV and BBC should have public service broadcasting traditions at their heart and that that would safeguard the system. Will the Home Secretary now accept that that was the correct recommendation and should be accepted?
Furthermore, will the Home Secretary think again about the situation in Scotland? It would be simply intolerable if the House did not have a say on the number of stations within Scotland and a Government-appointed quango was able to recommend that there be only one station within Scotland. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that the present three stations, or something very similar, will be maintained?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member talked about the original assumptions. The original assumption in the White Paper is that there is now an opportunity for a very big choice for the viewer. Instead of sitting on that and saying that they cannot have it because we are not sure that they would make the best use of it, we are trying to provide a framework within which the viewer can have increasing choice. We believe that, particularly as a result of the conclusions we have just come to, we can reconcile that with high quality. The hon. Gentleman is asking for something which has never existed before and which probably, on reflection, the House would not want—that the map should be settled by the House. It never has been before. There have been major changes in the past conducted and put through by the IBA. I do not think that it is a matter for primary legislation, and I have set out the present position.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement today that

subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing on Channels 3 and 5 will be mandatory and will be increased in the first year by 10 per cent. will be greeted as an enormous milestone and that there will be great thanks to him from that community for what he has done? Is he able to tell the House today what he regards as the next milestone in this and what pressure there will be on the ITC to ensure that the 10 per cent. increase does not become the entire increase?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend accept that it would be thought wrong if the logic that has led him to announce today that the night time hours of Channel 3 will stay with the franchise holder for the day time did not lead him to leave the night time hours of the BBC with the BBC?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right on his first point; we foresee a steady build-up of subtitling year by year. I note what my hon. Friend said on his second point. We have set out in the White Paper our notions about the BBC night hours and have noted the reaction. We have not yet turned to that matter, but we will have to do so.

Mr. John McAllion: The Home Secretary has said that he is in favour of increasing choice. Does he not accept that real choice for viewers will be diminished if small, locally based high quality companies such as Grampian Television do not survive? Why can he not assure the House that the exceptional power of the ITC to award a franchise to other than the highest bidder will be used to ensure the survival of companies such as Grampian?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it would be sensible or right to give any such assurance. I know the loyalty which the small companies attract from their viewers, and indeed from their Members of Parliament who live within their areas. That has been clear throughout these debates. However, I question whether the hon. Gentleman would be wise to suggest that the decisions about the map of television franchises should be enshrined in statute.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have not been able to call the remaining two hon. Members, but we have a very busy day ahead of us.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.

Ordered,
That the draft Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Employers' Liability Bill

Mr. Frank Doran: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to provide death-in-service insurance benefits for their employees; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the obligation on employers to insure their employees against death or injury at work. The existing scheme was introduced in 1969 and now covers the great majority of Britain's 22·5 million workers. The main difficulty with the present scheme, however, is that it still requires proof of negligence or fault on the part of an employer before a claim for compensation will be successful.
In most cases an injured employee, or his representative if the accident was fatal, will instruct a solicitor. The case will be intimated to the employers, who will pass the case to their insurers. There will be a period of haggling between solicitors and insurance companies. Many cases are settled at this stage. A great many are not and require legal proceedings.
Cases which do not go to court can take a great many months, sometimes even years, to settle. When they go to court cases certainly take years; delays of seven or eight years are quite common. Even then there is still the problem of proving fault or negligence on the part of the employers. Many employers and their insurers escape liability on technical legal grounds. The whole system is a lottery.
One particularly graphic example of the difficulties which are experienced is the case of the mv Derbyshire, which sank in 1980 with the loss of the whole crew of 44. The representatives of those 44 crew members have been involved in litigation ever since. They have been unable to prove negligence and it is unlikely that they will ever receive proper compensation for their loss. Yet they have all lost a loved one—a loved one who, regardless of the question of fault or negligence, died in the service of his employer. No disaster fund was set up and there were no visits from dignitaries such as the Prime Minister. The dependants of those 44 crew members have had to cope with the trauma of the loss of a loved one without adequate compensation to help them adjust to their new circumstances. That is a scandal in anyone's terms.
I am a firm believer in a "no fault" liability scheme. However, time and again this Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to consider such a scheme, which operates extremely well in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
My Bill is a modest attempt to introduce some equity and justice into the very haphazard system of compensation for injury and death which our legal system has created. For the present I am restricting its operation to cases in which there is a death resulting from an accident or illness at work. The motivation for the Bill arises out of my involvement in pursuing compensation claims as a solicitor in Scotland and also out of my involvement in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster, which affected so many of my constituents.
On the Piper Alpha I discovered that of the 167 men who died 31 were employed by the operators, Occidental. Those men were covered by an insurance scheme that provided their relatives with an immediate payment of £100,000 in the event of the men's death in employment.

The relatives of the other 136 victims have had to go through the normal channels of instructing solicitors to pursue their claims, with all the uncertainty that that involves. To their credit, Occidental and their lawyers have done what they could to speed up the process of agreeing compensation claims and in most cases agreement has been reached, although payment has not yet been made.
However, even this does not overcome the major problems for those who have lost a loved one. The time of most stress is immediately after the death. The survivors have to cope not only with the emotional stress of the loss, but, in most cases, with the financial loss. In the case of a young family, for example, where the loss of the main breadwinner can cause particularly serious financial problems, the difficulties are most acute.
We had a useful opportunity to discuss compensation and the anomalies involved earlier in the year when my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) introduced his Citizens' Compensation Bill. That Bill met with considerable hostility from the Government and I regret that the opportunity to deal with the real problems caused by the present system was missed.
It is not good enough to say to those families that they may have a legal right of action against an employer when that involves months, possibly years, of legal argument, financial outlay, considerably increased stress and no guarantee of success at the end of the day.
My Bill attempts to deal with those problems in a novel way. In the first place, it would oblige employers to carry compulsory insurance to provide an immediate payment to the representatives of an employee who died as a result of an accident or illness at work. There would be no requirement for proof of negligence and the payments would be ignored when the court was considering any subsequent compensation claim. There would be criminal penalties for any employer who failed to carry full insurance cover, and the court would be empowered to make an order for the full amount required to be paid under the insurance.
The Bill provides that the amount of cover per employee should be determined by regulation. That is to allow for upgrading in future. At the moment, my view is that £25,000 of cover per employee would be appropriate. That figure is reasonable, it is not excessive compared with current awards by the courts and it would be relatively cheap from the employer's point of view.
It would be open to employers to choose to provide a higher level of benefit. Many choose to do so already. One set of figures that I have seen suggests that over 20 per cent. of the work force is covered by such a scheme on a voluntary basis.
More than 22·5 million people in employment in the United Kingdom would be covered by the scheme proposed in the Bill. According to the latest annual report of the Health and Safety Commission, there were, on provisional figures, 340 fatal injuries at work in the United Kingdom last year. Since 1981 there have been 2,895 cases. In our legal system, it is likely that the majority of those 2,895 cases, where there are grounds for compensation claims, will still be unresolved.
In the absence of a no-fault scheme, the problems of delay in the legal system will continue. My Bill will provide some immediate financial assistance for those in greatest need at a time when it is most needed.
I have described the Bill as a modest measure, and indeed it is. There will be no cost to the Government or the


public purse. The cost to the employers will be extremely small and, in most cases, negligible in their total employment costs. However, to those families who lose a loved one through a work-related cause it will be of the most enormous significance at a time of great stress and most need. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Henry McLeish, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Tony Worthington, Ms. Clare Short, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

Mr. Doran accordingly presented a Bill to require employers to provide death-in-service insurance benefits for their employees; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Housing Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to express again our real anger about the way in which the Bill has been dealt with. Notwithstanding the appalling mess that the Government made of the Housing Bill 1988, which is now the Housing Act, when they brought forward about 170 amendments, they have now increased that number to at least 197 amendments and new clauses. Many other amendments have been tabled by the Opposition and by Back Benchers from various parties in the House, bringing the number of amendments up to well over 300. Yet we are expected to deal with them on the Floor of the House.
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the people outside the House expect Parliament to inspect legislation carefully. We usually do that in Committee. We did that in Committee, but we still have a Bill for which the selection list was not available until 7 pm yesterday. That is no criticism of the Clerks, who have worked incredibly hard, but not to have the selection list makes life difficult for all hon. Members.
In addition, we are anxious in that four new clauses and one amendment that I had hoped would be debated tomorrow have not been selected. I have tried to speak to the Clerks today, but they are not immediately available. In view of the pressure of work on the officials of the House, I understand why.
The Opposition's new clause 18 on ring fencing in part VI and new clause 17 in part VIII on the means-testing of grant are particularly important to us. I want to place on the record that, after the initial debates in which I shall be involved, I intend to discuss with the Clerks whether those can be selected for tomorrow.
Similarly, new clauses 21 and 28, dealing with first-time house buyers, houses in multiple occupation and fire risk, about which I am also concerned, and amendment No. 199 in part VIII on the right of appeal when a person does not receive a grant are also important matters.
I recognise that your powers in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are limited, but I stress to you, the Government, Parliament and the country that Parliament makes a mockery of its procedures if it spends months debating a Bill in Committee and then has only two days, starting at 5 o'clock this evening, to debate masses of amendments and new clauses, the vast majority of which have come from a Government who claim to know what they are doing. They clearly do not know what they are doing. The Bill is a mess, just as the Housing Bill was a mess. We are asked to put it right in just two short days on the Floor of the House and that is an insult to our parliamentary procedures.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) protests too much. Of the amendments before the House, 162 are minor, technical or consequential drafting amendments, many of which arise from the discussions in Committee in which the hon.


Gentleman took part, and 23 amendments are the result of commitments made in Committee. No amendments represent a significant new policy.
The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that there is anything before the House that cannot reasonably be dealt with in the circumstances and which cannot reasonably arise in what is an important Bill which the Government naturally wish to get right and concerning which we have listened carefully to the Committee.
I am sad that after a Committee which proceeded with good humour and where the Government on a range of occasions sought to meet the requests of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—many of whom were not always present, but who, when they were present, put forward their requests—the Opposition should consider our efforts to meet those requests to be to our detriment rather than a matter for congratulation. Instead, the Opposition should say that it is remarkable that the Bill has no amendments of substance except those which, in large measure, the Government have agreed with the Opposition to bring forward, or merely minor, technical amendments. That should be a matter for congratulation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We had better not continue with points of order. I can assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that, although I can in no way commit Mr. Speaker, I shall draw to his attention the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised about tomorrow's selection list so that he can reconsider the matter if he thinks that desirable.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We regard many of the amendments from the Opposition and from other Back Benchers to be amendments of substance. One person's technical amendment, which is usually based on the Government's definition of technical, is not everybody else's idea of a technical amendment.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to say through you that we are not a load of schoolchildren. The Opposition know what is going on. We continually have Bills that take us into the early hours of the morning because we feel that the new clauses and amendments should be debated properly. Yet the Government try to rush them through. The Government are not giving us the proper opportunity to discuss them. When a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box, especially the Minister for Local Government, and talks to us as though he is a teacher and we are the pupils in school, I say, "Come off it". The Minister has a big grin on his face now. He thinks that this is funny, but it is serious and that is why we are raising these points of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had better get started.

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move,
That the Local Government and Housing Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part I, Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 14, Schedule 1, Clauses 15 to 18, new Clauses relating to Part II, Amendments relating to Clauses 19 to 25, new Clauses relating to Part III, Amendments relating to Clauses, 26 to 29, Schedule 2, Clause 30, new Clauses relating to Part IV, Amendments relating to Clauses 31 to 54, Schedule 3, Clauses 55 to 57, new Clauses relating to Part V, Amendments relating to Clauses 58 to 64, new Clauses relating to Part VI, Amendments relating to Clauses 65 and 66, Schedule 4, Clauses 67 to 79, new Clauses relating to Part VII, Amendments relating to Clauses 80 to 91, new Clauses

relating to Part VIII, Amendments relating to Clauses 92 to 124, remaining new Clauses, Amendments relating to Clause 125, Schedule 5, Clause 126, Schedule 6, Clauses 127 to 135, Schedule 7, Clauses 136 to 138, Schedle 8, Clauses 139 to 147, Schedule 9, Clauses 148 to 152; new Schedules; Amendments relating to Clause 153, Schedules 10 and 11, Clause 154.
This motion has been tabled at the request of Opposition Members.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause 30

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require each member of a local authority—

(a) to give a general notice to the proper officer of the authority setting out such information about the member's direct and indirect pecuniary interests as may be prescribed by the regulations, or stating that he has no such interests; and
(b) from time to time to give to that officer such further notices as may be so prescribed for the purpose of enabling that officer to keep the information provided under the regulations up to date.

(2) Any member of a local authority who—

(a) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the requirements of any regulations under this section; or
(b) in giving a notice in compliance with any such requirement, provides information which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or recklessly provides information which is false or misleading in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(3) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) above shall not be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(4) Neither section 96 of the Local Government Act 1972 (general notice of pecuniary interests) nor section 40 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (corresponding provision for Scotland) shall apply in relation to any notice given in pursuance of any regulations under this section; but such regulations may provide—

(a) that the giving of a notice in pursuance of any such regulations shall be deemed to be sufficient disclosure for the purpose of section 94 of the said Act of 1972 (disability of members of authorities for voting on account of interest in contracts etc.) or for the purposes of section 38 of the said Act of 1973; and
(b) that the proper officer of a local authority is to maintain such records of the information contained in notices given to him as may be prescribed by the regulations and is to keep those records open to inspection by members of the public

(5) A local authority shall not be entitled (whether by means of making it a condition of any appointment or by any other means whatever) to impose any obligations on their members to disclose any interests other than those that they are required to disclose by virtue of section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972, section 38 for the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or any regulations under this section.

(6) Regulations under this section may contain such incidental provisions and such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision in connection with their other provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(7) References in this section to the indirect pecuniary interests of a member of a local authority shall include references to any such interests as, by virtue of any connection between that member or his spouse and any other person, would fall to be disclosed—

(a) in the case of a local authority in England and Wales, under section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972; or
(b) in the case of a local authority in Scotland, under section 38 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973,



if the authority were proposing to enter into a contract with that other person.':—[Mr. Gummer]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to debate amendment (a), in line 1, after `member', insert 'and officer of principal officer grade or above'.
Amendment (b), in line 4, after 'pecuniary', insert
'and non pecuniary, including membership of organisations such as the freemasons'.

New clause 35—Declaration of Freemasonry

' .—(1) A member of a relevant council shall make a declaration, in a register maintained for the purpose by the council, of membership of any lodge or other organisation of Freemasons.

(2) Any person offering themselves for election to a relevant council who is a member of such an organisation shall make a declaration to the returning officer at the time of nomination, and any such declaration shall be published by the returning officer together with details of the nomination.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "relevant council" has the same meaning as in section 10(2) above.'.

Government amendments Nos. 126 and 127.

5 pm

Mr. Gummer: New clause 30 and amendments Nos. 126 and 127 fulfil another of the commitments contained in our White Paper responding to the Widdicombe report —the provision of a statutory register of members' major pecuniary interests. There are four main elements to the clause. First, it gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations requiring each member of a local authority to give notice of any prescribed pecuniary interests—including indirect interests, and those of the member's spouse—to the proper officer appointed for that purpose, or to state that they have no such interests. The regulations will prescribe what interests are to be declared and will also specify how the information is to be updated.
Secondly, the clause makes failure to comply with the regulations, or the provision of false or misleading information, a criminal offence carrying a maximum fine at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £1,000. Third, the regulations may prescribe the form in which the proper officer is to keep a record of such declarations, and require it to be open to public inspection.
Finally, the clause prohibits authorities from imposing any obligations on members to declare any interests other than those which they are statutorily required to do by virtue of regulations under this clause, or that they are required to disclose at a meeting under section 94 of the Local Government Act 1972, or section 38 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Soley: Straight away, we are into the importance of the amendments, which demonstrates that they do not concern minor issues. The Minister is right to say that the Government trailed the proposals in their White Paper concerning the conduct of local authority business, when they also undertook to involve themselves in consultations with local authorities and others. In Committee concern was expressed as to why a timetable for meetings between the Department of the Environment and the local authorities' working party was not agreed. The Committee was assured that there were no problems and that those consultations would take place. However, the working party met only once, and its second meeting scheduled for 14 June has been cancelled—which is not surprising in the circumstances.
It all makes a mockery of the Government's attempt to kid everyone that they are interested in consultations. What on earth is the use of establishing the need for consultations and then holding just one meeting when the next thing that happens is that an amendment of this kind is brought before the House? If the Government were serious about consultations they could have introduced the amendment in another place.
Why is there such haste to introduce this measure without adjudication, and why is there no amendment of the kind that was promised to define the adjudicator's role —which is one aspect about which local authorities are unsure? Whose consent will be required for proceedings to be instituted in Scotland? Will it be that of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I suspect that the Minister does not know the answer, yet we are told that the amendment is of a technical nature and of no great importance. If it is a technical amendment, it is a bit bizarre that the Government cannot answer my questions. If, as I suspect, the Minister agrees that it is a substantive amendment, why have the Government introduced it without proper consultation and without giving answers to questions that were to some extent raised in Committee?
Why are the Government imposing on local authority councillors obligations and penalties that they are not prepared to impose on themselves as Members of Parliament? It is a matter for concern for local authorities, and for my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, that a double standard is operating. The introduction to the 1989 Register of Members' Interests sets out nine specific classifications under which Members of Parliament are required to register their interests. They are not required to disclose the amount of remuneration or the benefit that they may enjoy, or the interests of spouses or children—except in certain circumstances relating to shareholdings. Right hon. and hon. Members are not subject to a maximum fine of £1,000 for failing to disclose their interests, although such failure is considered bad form. Again, the Government are creating one set of rules for local authorities and another for themselves.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Apart from those exemptions, 13 years after publication of the Royal Commission report on standards of conduct in public life by Lord Salmon, it is still the case that right hon. and hon. Members cannot be charged with corruption pursuant to their parliamentary duties. It is a scandal that that exemption remains, especially when the Government introduce such legislation in respect of local councillors.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend reminds me of an important additional argument. In local authorities, councillors very often declare any interest and then take no further part in the proceedings.

Mr. John Battle: They are not allowed to do so.

Mr. Soley: However, in this House, after declaring an interest the right hon. or hon. Member is allowed both to participate and to vote. Why should councillors be treated as second-class citizens? Do we regard local democracy as being in some way less important than national democracy? I acknowledge the relative power of the two, but local democracy is still important.
I put it to the Minister, as I have many time previously, that Conservative councillors are worried about the way in


which the Government constantly denigrate, undermine and demoralise both local authority officers and councillors. What do the Government mean when they say that they want local citizens to participate in the democratic life of the country, and then surround councillors with restrictions and refuse to accept the same restrictions themselves? It is well known that some right hon. and hon. Members participate in debates and in votes in which they have a deep financial interest, or in which their friends, relatives and spouses do. If it is wrong for local councillors to debate and vote on matters in which they have an interest, surely it is also wrong for Members of Parliament to do so.

Local councillors will risk not just a ticking off. As the Minister said, the penalty will be a fine at level 4 of the Home Office scale. Is the Minister prepared to recommend a similar penalty being imposed on right hon. and hon. Members? If not, why not? We want answers to those questions before we allow the Minister to slide his amendment through.

Mr. Haynes: When the Channel tunnel was debated, one hon. Member representing an outside organisation, and receiving £8,000 for doing so, did not declare his interest in the register. My right hon. and hon. Friends played merry hell about that, but the Government did nothing.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. If the Amendment Paper were not flooded with amendments, that matter is one that we could debate in detail. We could name one hon. Member after another who has participated in debates and in votes relating to matters in which he had a financial interest. I refer to everything from visits to overseas countries and companies affected by legislation, to the Channel tunnel and to changes that the Government are making to the ownership of certain nationalised industries. Apparently, there is nothing wrong with that—but do the same as a councillor and one could end up in court and, on summary conviction, be fined. What kind of justice is that?

Mr. Irvine Patnick: rose—

Mr. Soley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is trying to intervene can tell the House how he justifies different standards applying to Members of Parliament from those that apply to local councillors.

Mr. Patnick: In cowboy films it is said "White man speak with forked tongue." I will not say that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) but he must surely accept that a councillor has far more power and could be a party to influencing decisions. There is no comparison between the interests—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) seems to be something of a comedian, but he laughs at his own jokes. I cannot see that there is a direct comparison between the powers of an hon. Member who speaks in a debate and those of a councillor who can vote something through.

Mr. Soley: I have seen the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) try to dance on the head of a pin before, but I did not think that he would get himself into such difficulties. The message is simple: in both the local authority chamber and this Chamber decisions are made which directly affect people's interests. A number of examples have already been given, such as the Channel

tunnel and other issues of that type. There is no difference between gaining from legislation and changes that go through the House, and gaining from changes that are passed through local authority council chambers. The two are synonymous in terms of the behaviour within them.
The degree of power is greater here, particularly if one takes into account what happens when Members are taken overseas to influence policy that is decided here. We are talking about influencing people with money or attractive offers of one type or another. We must be fairly flexible about that, otherwise we may shut out many activities which are necessary if we want to be well informed. Local authorities and hon. Members should abide by rules which are essentially the same, although they need not be exactly the same in every dot and comma. If we do not, we merely demonstrate to the public that we are concerned about other people's standards, but perfectly prepared to allow ourselves totally different criteria by which to be judged.

Mr. Gummer: I am not unhappy about the kind of comments being made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I wonder if he will help me: after all, statutorily, the House of Commons can make its own decisions about how to discipline its Members. It is perfectly open to him to make his point about the way in which we all have to operate within the rules of this House. The difficulty is that local authorities do not have the power to discipline their members: it is not within their competence.
If we are to set standards in local authorities we must do it in this way. That does not preclude the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) or other hon. Members from ensuring that the House should insist on different rules. However, the hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House by suggesting that councils and Parliament are parallel. I am sure that he does not mean to do so but he appears to do so. It is not that the responsibilities are that different, or that his views are not perfectly reasonable, but local authorities cannot discipline themselves, whereas this House can. If it does not take the measures which he would like it to take, it is open to him to suggest them. Has the hon. Gentleman put his points to the Select Committee on Procedure which is able to carry out his suggested measures? If not, he is not in a position to make such comments.

Mr. Soley: I can deal easily with the Minister's last point. The Labour party made recommendations and, when it was in government, carried them through into law, which this Government changed. The Labour Government tightened up the regulations on Members' interests, but this Government watered them down. We set our own standards.
I have two other answers for the Minister. First, if he believes that a disciplinary procedure is the best one, he could give local authorities the power to discipline themselves.

Mr. Patnick: rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall not give way at this stage.
The Minister did not say that he would give them those powers. It was interesting that the Minister said that he had some sympathy with what I have said. Presumably, if he does, he must recognise that we are giving ourselves a more flexible approach to this matter than we are giving to local authorities. As the Minister knows, we do not discipline hon. Members on the same basis which we are


laying down for councillors, which is that they will be fined. We do not discipline hon. Members for the same issues as those for which we intend to discipline councillors. Indeed, we intend to do more than discipline them; we propose to haul them up before the courts, convict them and fine them. That is what we are doing and that is why the Minister is wrong.

Mr. David Clelland: I have another parallel for the Minister to comment on. As the Minister is aware, the Government are giving power and substantial sums of taxpayers' money to sponsors of city technology colleges. One of the sponsors of the city technology college in Gateshead, Laine Northern, which is part of the John Laine group, sponsors the CTC to the tune of about £200,000. It has also been awarded the contract to develop the college to the tune of more than £8 million. When was the pecuniary interest announced in that case?

Mr. Soley: I was not aware of that particular example. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) has put his finger on an interesting point. As I said earlier, we could spend hours picking up examples in which hon. Members, particularly Conservatives, have been acting in a way which they regard as perfectly normal, but in which they will not allow local authorities to act.
New clause 35 to some extent spells out our philosophy. It requires a councillor to state whether he is a member of the freemasons, which we regard as an interest. The Minister will notice that we do not say that someone cannot stand if he is a member of the freemasons or that he will be hauled before the courts and fined, but simply that it is perfectly legitimate and proper for the electorate to be informed that a councillor is a member of the freemasons. That is because that group is known to have widespread interests. It is also perfectly proper if someone declares an interest and people elect him to be councillor and he carries out his role, no doubt in many cases, very well.
If the Minister is serious about interests he can, by all means, make it clear that local authority councillors must declare their interests. However, following discussions with local authorities about how far it should go, he should also work out a proper code. I recommend that there should not be an essential difference between that code and the rules which we impose on ourselves. Otherwise, we shall undermine people's confidence in our ability to make fair and reasoned judgments between the expectations which we place on others outside the House and those which we place on ourselves. If we are seen to favour ourselves we shall do ourselves and this House no service.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Although I support the Labour party when it says that hon. Members should declare their interests, I also welcome the steps by the Government, limited though they are, towards greater declaration of interests within local government.
The purpose of our amendments is to strengthen the principles which lie behind the Secretary of State's new

clause in order that they might have some chance of producing the effect which he and his Ministers desire. Amendment (a) makes an
officer of principal officer grade or above
subject to the same requirements as councillors to declare interests of any kind to their local authority. That is a valuable requirement at any time.
I suspect that hon. Members have experienced the sort of accusations about local authority officers acting wrongly pursuant to their own interests which circulate in local areas. The amendment would not only stop any abuses that may occur, but clarify the majority of cases in which officers are probably acting quite properly, but are the subject of innuendo and rumour at local level.
At present, our case is made all the stronger by the new era of large scale tendering for a wide variety of local government contracts. In that circumstance it is surely vital that the interests of any officers with significant involvement in the process should be open to scrutiny by members of both the council and the public. When we debated the matter in Committee I drew Ministers' attention to the fact that local government officers had been directly involved, for example, in some of the opting-out and takeover of housing estates.
Allegations of extremely dubious behaviour involving Westminster city council, among others, have already been made. Some council officers have set up businesses purely to profit from the tendering process. The public must have a right to know whether such people are involved in the administration of tendering, and I do not see why a council officer should be entitled to conceal a pecuniary interest from public view when a councillor cannot.
Amendment (b) proposes the inclusion of non-pecuniary interests in the declaration to be made by local authority members and senior officers. It refers to
organisations such as the freemasons
so that no one should be in any doubt about the influence that can be exerted by loyalty to such organisations, and so that the public may be free to decide whether personal interests are being put before theirs.
In 1986, it took a reporter from the Worthing Gazette and Herald to investigate why an obvious candidate for the position of mayor had been passed over. He revealed that the new mayor was the sixth of the past seven male Tory mayors who had been a mason. I think that the people of Worthing should have had the right to know that they were giving great authority to a series of people who all just happened to be members of the same secret society. Like the Labour party, I do not seek to ban such people from local government, but I do seek to ensure that such interests are made known to the public.
In May 1974 the Redcliffe-Maud report included a national code of local government conduct, which contains much that is pertinent to the amendments. The section on public duty and private interests states that, when councillors have a private or personal interest in any question that they must decide, they must not do anything to let that interest influence their decision. But how is anyone supposed to know whether a councillor or officer has been influenced by personal interests if those interests remain secret?
The section on disclosure of pecuniary and other interests makes precisely the point that we make in amendment (b). It states:
The law makes specific provision requiring you to disclose pecuniary interests, direct and indirect. But which are


not pecuniary can be just as important. Kinship, friendship, membership of an association, society, or trade union, trusteeship and many other kinds of relationship can sometimes influence your judgment and give the impression that you might be acting for personal motives. A good test is to ask yourself whether others would think that the interest is of a kind to make this possible. If you think they would, or if you are in doubt, disclose the interest.
Honest councillors or officers will clearly act honourably, but it is in their interest that we have tabled the amendments. If they are not merely acting honourably, but are seen to be doing so, they will be free from innuendo and rumour. Still more important, it is in their interests and those of the public and the House that people who might act dishonourably—or who might find that, unintentionally, they have allowed their interests to be swayed—make clear their interests or potential interests.
There are those who seek to abuse their position, and it is towards them that the Government aim their new clause. If they believe that it is important to make the changes that they propose, they should also accept our amendments to the new clause, which enhance it, ensure its effectiveness and extend it to many people in local government—that is, officers—and many interests—that is, non-pecuniary interests—which at present are not covered. I hope that the Minister will accept the importance of our proposals to the public interest.

Mr. Gummer: I would be the first to say that it is the proper activity of anyone who is elected to a position of responsibility, or who holds such a position, to make clear the context in which he is likely to be thought to have been swayed. I think that that may be one way of summing up what has been said by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)
Whether that principle is best presented by means of statutory requirements or by means of a code of conduct —and we have agreed on a code of conduct as well—is a matter for decision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a difficulty here, which I do not underestimate. I have before me a document that Haringey council asked every councillor to fill in—indeed, at one stage it insisted. Councillors had to say whether they were members of the women's institute, but not, curiously enough, whether they were members of Probus, although the Lions and the Rotary were covered. Although the most extensive of its kind that I have encountered, the document is selective: it is bound to be.
Most people would probably consider such a proposal to be an intrusion on normal behaviour. It also suggests that people will inevitably be biased in accordance with the organisations to which they belong, whereas, if we view ourselves honestly, we must admit to other biases related to what appeals and what does not, sometimes as a result of upbringing. Whatever we do, we must constantly ask, "Am I based, for this or that reason?". Much of what the hon. Member for Truro has said is covered by the way in which councillors properly approach their jobs, and the way in which a proper code of conduct would operate.
Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the hon. Gentleman referred to the freemasons. I am not a member of that organisation; I hold religious opinions that make such membership impossible. I hope, therefore, that I am reasonably unbiased. I think that there is some paranoia on the subject of freemasonry, which I do not consider the most likely area of bias. People are biased in

all sorts of ways, and the idea of selecting that organisation as opposed to all the others is very peculiar: it stands out like a sore thumb in the amendments.
The electorate should be allowed to know about any organisation to which someone belongs and about which he feels strongly. I feel, for example, that abortion is wrong and is on no occasion justifiable, and I will fight against it in all circumstances. My electorate must know that that is an opinion that I hold with deep conviction. It is more important than membership of any secular organisation. It would be very odd for a declaration of that view not to be required of me, although it is clearly of great importance to the way in which council money is spent, while I would he required to say whether I was a member of the freemasons.
Perhaps the best way to decide on the difference between statutory requirements and what might reasonably be expected from a sensible interpretation of a code of conduct would be to say that the one specific, measurable and factual question is that of pecuniary interest.

Mr. Soley: I think that the Minister should take into account two aspects of the freemasonry issue. First, the freemasons are a secret society known to have extensive interests in a wide range of activities. Secondly, a member of the Cabinet—the Home Secretary—has advised police officers and others, rightly in my judgment, not to become freemasons, so that factor has been taken into account. The Government already make special arrangements relating to senior officers in certain jobs, and I think that that is very wise of them. Why does the Home Secretary not adopt the practice in this context?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is referring to advice given by the Home Secretary; what is proposed here is a statutory statement. I am merely saying that it is difficult to know where to draw the line.
I suggest that it would be best to make statutory the requirement to reveal pecuniary interests. They can be much more clearly measured and their influence can be much more clearly pinpointed. In the code of practice that we hope to produce we shall point to the way in which most people ought to comport themselves. To select one kind of membership and not to mention all the others would be to suggest that there is something in the nature of the membership of freemasonry which even I—I am not a member and could not be a member—would find it impossible to accept.
5.30 pm
I do not intend to spend a lot of time discussing how secret is secret, but I can think of a lot of organisations whose operations are pretty secret and they would not be covered by the amendment. There are various party political organisations that are pretty secretive about the way in which they operate and they are pretty private about the nature of their links. I do not intend to discuss them because many of them have been the bane of the Labour party for many years. However, if they are not to be included, it means that something is being suggested about freemasons which I find very difficult to accept.

Mr. George Howarth: I do not want to labour the point about freemasons, but a considerable body of information is available to us which suggests that influence is used by freemasons over the awarding of


contracts and in many other areas of public life. That distinguishes freemasons from almost any other organisation that I can think of. The Minister should not confuse what freemasons do with the completely different activities of other organisations.

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that I take the view that economic influence is the most important influence. I am not one of those who put economics above everything else. Therefore, I suggest that other influences can be just as insiduous, hidden and dangerous. To single out one of them in this way seems to me to be a little lopsided. I am not being extreme about it. It is very much better for everyone to know about the organisations to which one belongs. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been debating these matters have set a reasonable example; everybody knows where they stand. Sometimes, therefore, we are the object of attack, but that is a much better way to go about it.
I was sorry when it was suggested that I do not know how things are done in Scotland. Things are done exactly in the same way in Scotland as elsewhere. Therefore, it would have been inexcusable if I had not known that the Lord Advocate would prosecute.
I am slightly puzzled about the demands that are being made. On the one hand it is suggested that the House of Commons should be much tougher on hon. Members. On the other hand it is suggested that it is wrong to be tough on members of local councils. That is not a very sensible argument. It is reasonable to ask for a proper declaration of pecuniary interests. If that leads the hon. Member for Truro to say that we are not being tough enough on hon. Members, the right step is not to object to the new clause but to seek to persuade the House to change its rules.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I promised that I would not take too long, and I want to answer the question that the hon. Member for Truro put to me.
The hon. Gentleman asked how officers will be dealt with. There is a difference. Officers are employed by the local authority, which can impose whatever requirements it likes on its officers. It cannot impose legally the same requirements on local authority members. It does not have that kind of power. The local authority should decide what it wants its officers to state about themselves. Some officers must declare rather more about themselves than others. That is a much better way to deal with it. I hope that both in those authorities in which the hon. Gentleman has some influence and in those in which I have some influence we shall seek to ensure that officers who have any of the connections about which he spoke make clear, because the local authority insists upon it, where they stand. It is not for Parliament to impose such a requirement on local authorities. It is for local authority members to make those requirements quite clear to the officers concerned.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I understand what the Minister says, but he lives in an idealistic world. That does not happen in practice. It is not a party-political issue because it does not arise between the different parties, whoever

may be running the local authority. However, enormous discontent has been expressed by local communities. On some occasions, local officers find themselves hauled across the coals. I can think of one recent example in my local authority. Innuendo and rumour destroyed the life of a local authority officer. There was very little that he could do about it. There was no statutory requirement that he should declare his interest. Frankly, no one would have believed him, whether he did or not, after a while. If there were a statutory requirement, people would have more confidence in the system. It would benefit the vast majority of officers who are upright and honourable. It would also protect the public in the few instances where that is not the case.
I understand what the Minister says about local authorities being able to set their own rules, but in this instance I do not believe that that is adequate. We are dealing with the conduct of public life at all levels. There should be basic rules according to which people in local government, whether they are elected or whether they are paid employees, have to work. It is for Parliament to set the basic rules according to which they work.

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that that is the best way. It should be left to local authorities. I believe in as much power as possible being given to local authorities. I have sought to provide that power. I very much hope that local authorities will shoulder that responsibility. It is not for the House to lay down rules.

Mr. Rooker: The new clause does not make clear whether the register will be available for public inspection. Can the Minister elucidate that point? It ought to be made clear because it is not clear to me. It is an important point.

Mr. Gummer: It will be available for public inspection.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: How does the Minister intend to use these powers? I notice that the new clause uses the word "may":
The Secretary of State may by regulations require each member of a local authority".
It does not use the word "shall." How will the Secretary of State use his powers? Will he be sparked into action by a single incident, or will he target authorities? Will the regulations apply to every local authority?

Mr. Gummer: The intention is merely to give the power to do these things. I give an undertaking that the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales intend to use the power in the way that we have described.

Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We intend to divide the House because there has been total lack of proper consultation by the Government, as they promised. Moreover, a terrible double standard is involved here, which we do not accept. The principle that people should have to declare an interest is right, but we cannot impose on others what we are not prepared to accept ourselves. Above all, we must not do it by means of this shoddy form of consultation which has resulted in just one meeting with local authorities. Consequently, the Minister has been able to answer only some of the questions—for example, about publicity. That is unsatisfactory. For that reason, we shall seek to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 135.

Division No. 235]
[5.38 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Allason, Rupert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Alton, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Franks, Cecil


Arbuthnot, James
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
French, Douglas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fry, Peter


Ashby, David
Gale, Roger


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gardiner, George


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkinson, David
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Batiste, Spencer
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Beith, A. J.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gregory, Conal


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Body, Sir Richard
Hague, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Boswell, Tim
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Harris, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowis, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hayward, Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heddle, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buck, Sir Antony
Hill, James


Budgen, Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Howard, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kennedy, Charles


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Kirkwood, Archy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Livsey, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Mans, Keith


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maples, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maude, Hon Francis





Mellor, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Miller, Sir Hal
Sims, Roger


Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mitchell, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Moate, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Paice, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trippier, David


Portillo, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Raffan, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wallace, James


Redwood, John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Nicholas
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shelton, Sir William
Mr. David Maclean and


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Tom


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, Stan


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beckett, Margaret
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blunkett, David
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Buckley, George J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fraser, John


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Haynes, Frank






Heffer, Eric S.
O'Brien, William


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Patchett, Terry


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robertson, George


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Wall, Pat


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Allen McKay and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the clause, in line 1, after 'member', insert
'and officer of principal officer grade or above'.—[Mr. Matthew Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 229.

Division No. 236]
[5.51 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Skinner, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Cartwright, John



Fearn, Ronald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Matthew Taylor and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. James Wallace.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkinson, David
Bowis, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Batiste, Spencer
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Buck, Sir Antony


Benyon, W.
Budgen, Nicholas





Burt, Alistair
Irving, Charles


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Carttiss, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Chope, Christopher
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kilfedder, James


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knox, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Critchley, Julian
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lord, Michael


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Devlin, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maples, John


Dunn, Bob
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Durant, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Dykes, Hugh
Miller, Sir Hal


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evennett, David
Mitchell, Sir David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Moate, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Favell, Tony
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mudd, David


Forman, Nigel
Neale, Gerrard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Franks, Cecil
Norris, Steve


Freeman, Roger
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


French, Douglas
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fry, Peter
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gardiner, George
Patnick, Irvine


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Gill, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Glyn, Dr Alan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Price, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Grist, Ian
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Renton, Tim


Hague, William
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hanley, Jeremy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Scott, Nicholas


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heddle, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shelton, Sir William


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hill, James
Sims, Roger


Hind, Kenneth
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howard, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunter, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John






Steen, Anthony
vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stern, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stevens, Lewis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. David Maclean and


Trippier, David
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN STAFF NEGOTIATIONS

' .—(1) It shall be the duty of a local authority to secure that, so far as practicable, the interests of that authority in any negotiations with respect to the terms and conditions on which persons in local authority employment hold office or arc employed are never represented, whether directly or indirectly by, or by persons who include—

(a) a person who is both a member of the authority and in such employment; or
(b) a person who is both a member of the authority and an official or employee of a trade union whose members include persons in local authority employment.

(2) In this section—
member", in relation to a trade union, includes any person who is a member of that union within the meaning of the Employment Act 1988; and
official" and "trade union" have the same meanings as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1988; and
official" and "trade union" have the same meanings as in the Trade Union and Labour relations Act 1974; and
and a person shall be treated for the purposes of this section as in local authority employment if he holds any paid office or employment under a local authority or any such paid office or employment under any other person as, by virtue of section 80(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 or section 31(1)(a) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, disqualifies him for membership of any authority.

(3) This section shall come into force at the expiry of the period of two months beginning on the day this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6 pm

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the provision would be to prohibit a local authority appointing a person who is both a member of the authority and an employee of local government from representing its interests in any negotiations concerning the terms and conditions of local government staff. The prohibition would also cover any member of local government who is also an official or employee of a trade union, the members of which include persons in local authority employment. This is an attempt to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise in staff negotiations.

Mr. Soley: The new clause is what is known as the painful elaboration of the obvious because most local

authorities—indeed, all, because I do not know of any exceptions—practise this. Why on earth the Government, who boast about not producing unnecessary legislation, choose to do this is beyond me, but if they want to go through this strange rigmarole, so be it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

SCOPE OF PART I

'(1) This part shall have effect for the purpose of disqualifying a person from becoming or remaining a member of a local authority, in accordance with section 1(8), where that person holds a politically restricted post in a local authority in Great Britain.

(2) For the purposes of this part, a person shall be regarded as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority where that person is—

(a) the person designated under section 4 below as the head of the authority's paid service;
(b) a statutory or non-statutory chief officer; or
(c) a deputy chief officer.'.—[Mr. Blunkett]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New Clause 3

INQUIRY BEFORE INTRODUCTION OF REGULATIONS ABOUT POLITICALLY RESTRICTED POSTS

'(1) No regulations about politically restricted posts shall be introduced under Part I before the completion of any inquiry established under subsection (2) below, and the publication of its report.

(2) The Secretary of State shall establish an independent inquiry to assess the impact on local authority employees of the numbers likely to be affected by, and of the consequences for staff morale and the quality of service of—

(a) the operation of a £13,500 salary qualification, or such higher amount as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify;
(b) the introduction of a political restriction in respect of giving advice on a regular basis to the authority, to any committee or sub-committee of the authority or to any joint committee on which the authority are represented; and
(c) the introduction of a political restriction in respect of acting on behalf of the authority on a regular basis for communicating with journalists or broadcasters; and
(d) the introduction of a political restriction in respect of dealing on a regular basis with members of the public in circumstances from which they might reasonably infer that the holder of the post is in a position to influence the decisions of the authority, any committee or sub-committee of the authority or any joint committee on which the authority are represented.'.

New Clause 4

VOLUNTARY CODE OF PRACTICE (PART I)

`(1) This Part shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section, and after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State.
(2) No Order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.


(3) No Order shall be made under subsection (1) above before a period of twelve months from the introduction of a Code of Practice under subsection (4) below.
(4) The local authority associations shall, as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, prepare and publish a voluntary Code of Practice for local authorities covering the matters referred to in this Part.
(5) No Order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe that a serious infringement of the Code of Practice has taken place, and that the making of the Order will prevent a recurrence of such an infringement.
(6) Before making an Order under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out his reasons for making such an Order, with reference to any alleged infringement of the Code as specified in subsection (5) above.'.

Mr. Blunkett: In moving new clause 2, with which new clauses 3 and 4 are being considered, I want to try to disentangle the way in which certain aspects of local government practice have been distorted and promoted through the media as inferring that all those who are openly politically active in whatever capacity and who work for local government at above a salary of £13,500 are, in the words of the Minister in Standing Committee G, "acting despicably".
The Opposition need to disentangle clearly what we are and what we are not in favour of and to ask the House to vote on those matters. First, we are not in favour of people having jobs created for them so that they may continue their political activities in working time, irrespective of their contribution to the local community in the job in which they have been employed. We want to make that absolutely and unequivocally clear. As our new clause 4 suggests in relation to other matters, we seek ways of ensuring that codes of practice and reasonable standards and rules of behaviour are applied. That is quite possible and, indeed, appointments procedures for local authorities, involving members of all political parties, can be and have been devised to ensure that that objective is met.
The second and associated smear that has been deliberately followed through understandable public worries on the first point has been the interesting notion that if one works for a local authority, one should not, perhaps, be involved in any political activity of any kind; that one should be restricted from standing for office either in local authorities, for Parliament here in Westminster or for the European assembly; and that one should be restricted from being able to speak, write or canvass on behalf of a political party or a cause associated directly with a political party. We reject that inference and smear on literally tens of thousands of people who have been giving decent service not only to local government but to their communities and to the cause of democracy.
Openly speaking and the ability to write and to declare oneself in favour of a political cause is not something of which to be ashamed; it is something of which to be proud. It is something that we should welcome in a democracy. Indeed, it is something that is suppressed and oppressed in regimes which all hon. Members would be eager to condemn and which the media outside the House spend a great deal of time rightly vilifying. However, when it is near to home there is the silence of indifference. There are people who are keen to preach to others and yet reluctant to practise the same rules for themselves.
Therefore, this evening, we are proposing measures to separate those things that we think have some validity in

terms of needing guidance and restriction from those things that should be accepted as a normal and reasonable part of our political life.
First, we suggest that there should be some restriction on chief officers and their deputies and on the heads of the paid service and their deputies in terms of standing for other local authorities. That is reasonable and prudent. We do not think that many people would object to that. However, we do not see why that restriction and the political restrictions to which I have referred on people's ability to take part in politics should be extended to the vast number of people to whom the Bill would apply. Following the offer that has been made to administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff in local government, after July as many as 130,000 people will be caught in the restriction that forbids those on a gross annual salary of more than £13,500 to take part in political activity. That number comprises those who work directly in the paid service and does not include those caught in other aspects of the clauses that we are debating in terms of direct restrictions, irrespective of salary level.
That number of people, who can practise their democratic rights quite openly this week in the European elections and who have the civil right to display posters and to persuade other people to vote for any political party in that election will, if the Bill is passed, find that what is legal and acceptable this week will no longer be acceptable from the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent. We shall be placed in the farcical position that at the next European Assembly elections people who work in local government and who wish to be politically active will have to join the former leader of the Liberal party in campaigning in Italy, France or West Germany where they will presumably be free to engage in political activity. But they will not be able to promote their views and campaign on behalf of members of the same party in the United Kingdom —[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) wish to intervene?

Mr. Nicholas Soames: indicated dissent.

Mr. Blunkett: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has nothing to say. The Government's proposals are disgraceful. They are an infringement of basic civil and human rights and they will be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. The legal view already is that they infringe article 10 and the first protocol, article 3 of the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Patnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that civil servants are already bound by certain rules? Are Opposition Members changing their view on this issue, bearing in mind what they have said in advocating that the rules for hon. Members should be the same as those applying to councillors?

Mr. Blunkett: On present salary levels, industrial and non-officer grades in the Civil Service earning up to a maximum of £24,000 are not restricted. Those working in grades in a "politically restricted capacity" on salaries ranging between £17,500 and £24,000, including London weighting, would have to ask their immediate superiors for permission to engage not only in those activities which are now banned but in standing for public office. There is no comparison between the restrictions on civil servants and the £13,500 arbitrary ban, as it were, in the Bill.
Is impartiality in the public service to be judged purely in terms of whether people pretend not to hold political views? After all, one could be a sleeper—a quiet and surreptitious revolutionary—or hold all manner of views so long as one did not express them. Are we to sweep such views under the carpet, pushing them into shady corners of unacceptability? Are we to push democracy so that people are obliged to hold their views in quiet silence?
Not only is that unacceptable to us, but it demonstrates an important contradiction that emerged in Committee. If public confidence is endangered because people hold views and, as it were, practise democracy in their spare time, seeking exemption must cast doubt on their impartiality as well as questioning the advice that is given, even though, as the Minister said in Committee, the political views of the individual are not of concern. I question the fact that the individual is politically active.
The act of seeking exemption, of going to the arbitrator and asking to be permitted, because of one's job—perhaps because one is a mortuary attendant on overtime or a psychiatric social worker in the children's service—to go forward for selection for, say, the Conservative party, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment found herself doing in the 1970s and 1980s, will be tantamount to declaring oneself to be politically active.
The moment one declares oneself to be political, in accordance with the Bill, one will be labelled and blacklisted. One will have indicated that one holds views strongly enough to want to be, say, the treasurer of the local Conservative association, and in Committee we showed that that would come under the "unacceptable" category.
At general election time we may describe such a request as unacceptable, but to find Ministers now talking about an activity in their party as being in some way dangerous to the nation's democracy is beyond belief. That is why we wish to differentiate between political knock-about and propaganda that seeks to discredit individuals and the dangerous road down which we are now being led in terms of disqualifying tens of thousands of people from practising their normal political rights.
6.15 pm
If it is reasonable to believe that impartiality flows from the advice given by solicitors, accountants, surveyors or estate agents, even though they are politically active, the same must apply to local authority employees undertaking normal and reasonable tasks. That has been the case in Tory authorities with Labour activists and in Labour authorities with Tory activists, and with few exceptions there has been no malpractice. Dedication and decency have been the general rule.
In seeking to restrict the Bill to a few, clearly-designated and highly-paid senior officials, and in promoting a code of practice which would enable us to see what was and was not acceptable, local government would regulate itself, and Parliament would decide whether the code of practice had worked. We aim by that means to protect basic rights that have been acceptable in the past but which, with the passage of the Bill, will be described as "despicable".
I hope that, even at this late stage, common sense will prevail in the Government and that it will not be necessary for people to go to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the British Government had acted in an unacceptable and arbitrary manner. We do not have a

good record in that court. We have lost on vastly more occasions than other countries. Indeed, whenever people turn to European institutions to obtain redress and have their civil rights upheld, those institutions are strengthened to the detriment of the authority of the British Parliament.
That leads people to have less confidence in securing their democratic rights at the national level. That is bad for Parliament and for Britain. It reveals us in a poor light. What the Government propose may be good knock-about politics and they may think they are getting political capital out of it, but it is a basic infringement of all that we in Britain stand for.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: We debated this issue on Second Reading and at some length in Committee, and throughout those debates Conservative Members showed no sign of understanding the gravity of what is involved in removing people's basic democractic rights in a country the political system of which is based fundamentally on people holding those rights.
The Government's proposals mean that the right of freedom of speech will be curtailed for thousands of people. The right of free association, to campaign and to do something about those things in which people believe will be removed at a stroke, yet Ministers have been unable to give satisfactory reasons for what they are doing. They have not said, for example, that what they propose is vital or that they have tried to frame other options that would not remove those fundamental liberties. They have said that it must be plain common sense and that we must simply take away those liberties. It is that more than anything that appals me about our debates.

Mr. Gummer: Is it the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to give civil servants the right to do all those things —a right that they have never had, even as far back as the period during which the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power?

Mr. Taylor: The Minister diverts me down the lengthy route that we followed in Committee. He will recall our long and detailed arguments about procedures within the Civil Service, the greater rights of individuals to appeal and the clearer levels at which differences occur. We reluctantly accept that there is a level within local government at which there should be certain restrictions, although I should much prefer that not to be the case.
The powers being taken by the Secretary of State and the arbitrary nature of the £13,500 figure suggest that the Minister, both for political ease and to win political support from some members of the general public, has found it simpler to wipe out a whole set of liberties at a stroke. We do not even know precisely what liberties will be removed and no details will be available before we vote. We know that the provision will be imposed retrospectively and will include, at least, prohibition on holding office in a political party, speaking or writing publicly on matters of political controversy—however that may be defined—and canvassing at elections. Ministers defend the provision by saying that it will affect only a tiny number of people, but we must remember that even on their figures, on a salary bar of £13,500 it will affect 70,000 or 80,000 people —enough to elect one Member of Parliament or to provide a majority for two Members of Parliament. That is only an initial figure. There have been no commitments from Ministers—and they certainly have not been included in the Bill—that there will be suitable changes year by year to


ensure that the numbers affected do not rapidly expand. There are many ways in which more people can be brought within the net, but the most obvious is through the annual pay awards. The local authorities' conditions of service advisory board estimates that a further minimum of 20,000 staff each year will fall into the restricted category simply through the normal run of pay settlements.
In addition to the Government's reference to principal officers and above, 4,000 staff will be brought in through London weighting, another 4,000 on local scales and 8,500 fire service employees. Ministers have not told us the reality of what is being done. They have given no commitment that more and more people will not be brought into the net. That is fundamental to the liberties of every citizen, not just those directly affected, because it distorts the very democracy within which we work. Certainly all hon. Members should have a special regard for that.
Ministers say that the provision will be subject to an appeal system, yet many of those affected will have no recourse to appeal. The Government intend to scrub out the liberties of many thousands of local government employees simply by putting them under other categories. Even with the £13,500 rule, which will be subject to appeal, we are asked to believe that one adjudicator can deal with the whole of the appeal system. How can that be so? Can an appeal be held in advance? Can someone say that as he is expecting a pay rise the next year and might be banned from local government he wants to appeal in advance, not be kept hanging on a fine thread, so that he knows what he can or cannot do?
We have discussed at length the difficulties of deciding how the appeal process will operate and whether it can cope, especially when the provision is initially enacted and will affect so many people almost overnight. How does the Minister envisage it working when it is thought that people have broken the rules? It will be difficult for the individual to be sure whether his actions will be assessed as taking part in matters of public controversy. Will he be thrown out of office simply because he has miscalculated what he can or cannot do? Will the public have glossy literature pushed through their doors asking them to keep an eye on local government employees who might be breaking the rules? Are people expected to report on neighbours who have political posters in their windows or have been at a vaguely political demonstration? Or will the system operate through confessions—an individual going to the adjudicator and confessing his sins? Will the adjudicator say, "Own up, you have been a bad boy and we must do something about it."
It will be impossible for the system to work in the way intended. Either there will be some sort of police state, under which everyone will be worried about who might be reporting him to the authorities, on Left or Right, as he goes about his daily life and becomes involved—or even only said to be involved—in issues of importance to his local community, or there will be a special group of people employed to monitor the system in the way that snoopers police the poll tax by going around homes to see how many tooth brushes are in the bathroom.
The Government are launching a broadside at the basis on which our democracy works without apparent awareness of the implications and without placing

restrictions on the number of people who can be brought into the net. Many people will be brought into it at a later date. Will they be only local government employees or will the employees of the few remaining public utilities be included? How far will the net extend? That is a fundamental issue that should not be pushed through the House.
I support the new clauses because their aim is to ensure proper democratic debate and decision-making, to restrict the numbers involved and to delay implementation of the provision. The Minister will no doubt argue that the new clauses aim to prevent the provision ever being implemented. That is true, and I welcome it. Those hon. Members who believe in the fundamental democratic rights and liberties of the people should do everything possible to oppose such a broad brush, sweeping attack on many thousands of individuals and the many tens of thousands who the Government may say are not included, but who we know potentially will be included in future.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: What is at the root of the Government's proposal, and why I urge the House to reject the new clause, is the importance of the neutrality of the local government official and the impartiality with which he gives his advice as a servant of the community. I have some knowledge of these matters. My father was chief accountant for Salford corporation for 30 years before he joined the National Health Service in 1948. He always regarded as a prime factor in his service to the local authority the fact that he was essentially politically neutral, taking no part in any political activity, so that the advice that he gave to all parties was equal and fair and seen to be unbiased. That is the role of the local government employee—who, after all, chooses to work in local government—especially those with salaries of more than £13,500 and the designated officers whom my right hon. Friend the Minister has included within the scope of the provision—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Hind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) talked about the rights of the individual and of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. That is very much going over the top in relation to my hon. Friend's modest recommendation contained in the clause.
If we look at the Civil Service and at local government officials throughout the European Community, we will find that it is expected that they will be neutral, servants of the community providing unbiased political advice to the elected representatives. That, after all, is the role of a local government officer. Considered from that point of view I am sure that we can see the sense and the purpose of the clause.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. We wish to make progress.
The proposals contained in these clauses have been introduced because the non-existence of regulations in the immediate past was abused. The fact that we did not have much regulation in this area, so that it was possible to be


a councillor on one authority and work for another, has been abused in recent years. We have seen it occurring constantly, especially in the south-east. I make it clear that it is not a problem in Lancashire and the north-west, apart from Merseyside. We have seen, however, over and over again in the south-east examples of councillors working for one local authority being given a job in another.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point.
That sort of job-for-the-boys situation must be stopped.
New clause 4 is asking for a voluntary code of practice —in effect a series of regulations with no teeth. It is clearly a wrecking amendment that the hon. Member for Brightside has tabled to destroy the intention that is behind my hon. Friend's clause. Secondly, it asks the House to deal with each individual case that is reported to it, through the Secretary of State, so that, effectively, each individual case is resolved by the House. That is a huge waste of the legislative time of the House. It is something that should be dealt with elsewhere.
I respect the tactics of the hon. Member for Brightside, because he is in opposition, but this is a wrecking amendment that will achieve nothing. I say to my hon. Friends that it is just undermining the Bill. I advise them completely to reject the three new clauses. I commend that view to the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I believe that we are debating an important issue. This group of new clauses is relatively modest in its approach. The new clauses recognise that the Government are not likely to recognise the folly of their policy. However, at least they give them the opportunity, if they accept the new clauses, to analyse the implications of their policy. While it would delay the implementation of the relevant parts of the Bill, it would allow them to reconsider. If the Government considered the matter positively, I believe that they would recognise that it is unnecessary to move in that direction.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) appears to believe that a person earning £13,500 could not serve on one local authority and perform his duties in his employing authority in a way that was not reflecting his political view. I am sure that the majority of employees who earn such a salary could not in any way influence the political viewpoint or the direction in which a local authority moves. The arbitrary figure chosen is nonsensical. It penalises those, especially in London and the south-east, who, because of the higher cost of living and property values resulting from the Government's policies, must be paid a salary for a job that would attract a much lower level of salary elsewhere.
I accept that, if a council is being advised by officers on a committee, it wants those officers to give impartial advice and to carry out the decisions of the local authority. That would be expected by any local authority, whether Labour, Conservative or SLD. When we take over government, we shall certainly expect the civil servants to act in the same way and to carry out the wishes of a Labour Government. There are genuine fears that the Government are stacking the Civil Service with senior civil servants who are of their viewpoint. If the Government are concerned about political interference, they should look

into that matter. I know that a series of questions has been asked about the number of political advisers who have been appointed in many Government Departments. In fact, the Government have more political advisers in the different Departments than any previous Government.
I feel strongly that it is wrong to erode people's rights to stand for local authorities and to remove their political freedom. We see the Government continuously eroding civil liberties, freedom and rights.—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) of course rejects that charge. He never speaks in these debates. He fails to recognise that consistently this Government, who talk about freedom, erode freedom by their legislation. Obviously, the constraints of the debate will not allow me to cite examples, but that is very much in accord with their policy of removing rights.
We do not know what the regulations will contain and whether they will say that local authority employees cannot display a poster or cannot go canvassing. We have seen examples of the powers given to the Secretary of State. He can make regulations under legislation, and we saw how a few weeks ago seven orders, involving 94 pages of poll tax regulations, were dealt with in an hour and a half. That shows why we are rightly concerned about what the Government are doing. That was a sham of a debate. As I said that night, we are increasingly becoming a sham of a democracy.
If the Government are not prepared to accept the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), they will make a great mistake. While it may be right that the very senior officers should not be in a position to stand for local authorities, it is nonsense to bring in this arbitrary figure and thereby remove so many people from service on local authorities and participation in political activities. The Government would really like to move a motion that no one takes part in political activities in this country unless they happen to be Conservative activities. They do not like anyone with a different point of view from the one expressed from the Conservative Benches. The Government do not believe in democracy. It is consistent with their policy to erode democracy. If they are not prepared to accept the new clauses, I fear that it will be a further serious erosion of and a restriction on the rights of local government employees, of whatever party, to express their political views and, if they so wish, to serve on local authorities.
I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of what we are debating. I stress that it is a dangerous direction in which the Government are moving. If they want to preserve democracy, freedom and people's rights, they will be prepared to accept the new clauses.

Mr. Rooker: I support the three new clauses. In all honesty, I do not believe that the modern Conservative party believes in local government. The evidence of the past few years is there for all to see, and this is just one further example. They are driving people out of local government. That is their intention, because they do not want any strain of independence or any other form of power in the land other than central Government under Conservative party control.
If the Government get their way, by and large the people who really want to contribute to society will not go into local government. They will want nothing to do with


it. Following the financial changes, local government officers will be bereft of any decision-making powers and their other powers will be greatly restricted.
Over the past decade it has become clear—I shall not cite individuals as that is unfair—that the whole thrust of the Conservative parliamentary party has been against good independent local government. That government is not partisan and it is not political, but independent and good and the Government do not like it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made it clear that many people in local government believe that their fundamental democratic and human rights are being severely curtailed by the Bill. He said that those people will seek to use their democratic rights to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. I was amazed when the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind)—I believe that he is in the legal profession—said that to take such a complaint to the European Court was "going over the top".

Mr. Hind: Quite right.

Mr. Rooker: Are we to assume that an amendment will be tabled to stop people exercising their right to make such a complaint? Because of our unwritten constitution the Government are able to trammel people's rights. More and more people are forced to go to courts outside the United Kingdom to seek redress. It is expensive and all possible pressure is exerted on people not to do so. To argue that it is over the top to make such a complaint to the European Court—the function of that court is to stop member states trammelling the civil liberties of their citizens—is a disgraceful remark from a parliamentarian.

Mr. Hind: rose—

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to any hon. Members and I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should give way as he attacked my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rooker: Of course I attacked him and I shall continue to do so. I will not give way to him.
The issue goes much wider because the Government's legislation does not just cover those who give advice—

Mr. Hind: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hind: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is a matter of courtesy in this House for an hon. Member who criticises another, whether it is justified or not, to give way to the hon. Gentleman criticised so that he may respond.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is for the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Rooker: If the Government's legislation just covered those who gave advice and its scope was that narrow, there would be some merit in the argument that we could debate. The Bill, however, will not just cover

those who give advice, but manual workers and people who, by and large, have no contact with the public or with councillors. That is the incredible thing about the Bill.
Frankly, we would not be having this debate today if it were not—I say this as a Member representing Birmingham—for a mere handful of isolated cases of gross abuse in London. That is the truth of the matter. Those hon. Members who represent parts of the country outside London deeply resent what has happened. What is more, that abuse could have been put right much more easily than by the introduction of the draconian measure before us today. The Bill will affect thousands of councillors and it is a smear on good local government on both sides of the political divide. All that, just because of a handful of people in certain London boroughs. No one denies that certain chief officers were twin-tracking, but it is disgraceful that this Bill has been introduced because of their actions.
I am also concerned about the definition of political activities. The Government have attacked a range of activities and people's rights and freedoms. People join political parties, but they also join political movements. Not all political movements are political parties and a fine distinction must be drawn. At one time one could have argued that the environmental movement was not a political party, although one party may have claimed to have been more concerned about the environment than others. All parties claim that today.
6.45 pm
Our constitution is unwritten and it allows the Government to do what they want. It allows them to take people's rights away, but it also allows people to complain to the European Court of Human Rights. Charter 88 is a people's movement for constitutional reform and I understand that it is supported by members of all political parties and people of no political party. That group holds meetings around the country—some of which are said to be ordinary public meetings and some of which are fringe meetings held at conferences run by political parties and other organisations. That group is seeking to campaign for wide constitutional reform on a non-party and all-party basis. Under the Bill, will membership of that group constitute political activity? Some signatories to the charter are Conservative—they are few and far between, but honourable nevertheless. It is their constitutional right to campaign, outside of political parties, for constitutional reform. We must not forget that. I plead guilty to not following the Committe proceedings as well as I should have done and I do not know whether what is meant by political activity was discussed.
The Bill is extremely dangerous. New clauses 2, 3 and 4 go some way to mitigate that danger and to meet the main thrust of the abuse that undoubtedly took place. We did not support that abuse and we would have sought to put that matter right.

Mr. Patnick: I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). It is a pleasure to listen to the logic of his argument, but it is difficult to follow.
I accept that the Local Government Act 1972, introduced by a Conservative Government, sought to distinguish between an officer who worked for the council and those people who were officers initially, but then became known as party activists. Pre-1972 it was possible


to go to local government officers to seek impartial advice. I do not mean to be disparaging about the present officers in local government, but if they are responsible to political masters it is hard for them to give impartial advice.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the fact that only London councillors were twin-trackers. The Daily Mail of 20 November 1985—

Mr. Tony Banks: Oh no!

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has made more speeches from a sedentary position today than anyone else. I have not yet seen him get up to say anything positive; he merely continues his abuse from a sedentary position—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We should have one debate at a time.

Mr. Patnick: Thank you for your protection—[Interruption.] Now our Member of the European Parliament, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), is joining in.
The Daily Mail article stated that a quarter of Glasgow's city councillors were employed by their regional council, Strathclyde. The hon. Member for Brightside and myself had the honour to be members of South Yorkshire county council—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bradford, South wants to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Cryer: All I want to say is that I am being constantly pestered by the junior Minister from the Home Office, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who keeps shouting questions at me which are entirely irrelevant, and I am merely being courteous.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we ought to show a little common courtesy in this Chamber and hear only one speaker at a time.

Mr. Patnick: I apologise to the hon. Member for Bradford, South; I thought he wished to intervene.
Both the hon. Member for Brightside and I were members of South Yorkshire county council and Sheffield city council and had a chance to see if friendship across the political divide could blossom because I had the pleasure of transporting him from Barnsley to Sheffield, where we used to slither in to the next meeting.
From the four districts—Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield—many officers employed by the local authority were also county councillors. I do not say that there was anything wrong in that. I am making the point because the hon. Member for Perry Barr said it was only London people who did this and I have endeavoured to prove that it was not.
The fact is that 16 per cent. of local authority councillors of all parties in Britain are also local authority employees—that is, about 4,000 people.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that we have heard before and that features in the Conservative party's brief on the Bill. Can he tell us how many of those to whom he refers as being also local authority employees would come under these restrictions, because clearly many of them would be on much lower salaries and not in positions that would be included in this Bill?

Mr. Patnick: I thank the hon. Member for that wonderful intervention. If he had allowed me to finish the point that I had started to make, I would have answered that. His crystal ball is not as good as it appears to be.
Of those 4,000 people, about 58 per cent. are teachers or lecturers, to whom the twin-tracking provision does not apply—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill and it does not apply to teachers or lecturers—wrongly, some may think. This was discussed in Committee and the Minister stated that it did not apply. That leaves about 1,700 people to whom the twin-tracking provision might apply, although not all will be politically restricted. So we are left with the basic number, which could be 400 to 500 councillors, who may be caught by the twin-tracking prohibition. Does any hon. Member say that that is unreasonable? There are only a few people to whom this applies and I cannot see that it is so onerous that it is taking away privilege and making people go I o the European Court, although no doubt some Opposition Members will make that case.

Mr. Tony Banks: As ever, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) missed the point. I should like to say that I compliment him on a good speech, but I would not wish to mislead the House.
The twin-tracking argument has been used to distract attention from the more insidious aspect of this Bill, which is the political restriction on officers earning £13,500. I am not particularly in favour of twin-tracking. When I was a member of the Greater London council—and the sun always shone in those days, as we all know—

Mr. Patnick: It was shining today.

Mr. Banks: No, the sun was not shining today; it was the greenhouse effect today. It was a microwave oven out there. It is all part of the ozone layer breaking down because of Government policies. The sun genuinely shone in GLC days. I was not particularly happy about officers who had heavy council responsibilities being elected members of other local authorities. I accepted the fact, but I was not happy about it.
The point—and we said this to the Minister in Committee—is that we should look at the whole matter of compensation and the way that we remunerate our councillors. We have a crazy system. We still rely very much on people giving up their careers in order to be local councillors. It seems to me that, if we are really worried about the question of twin tracking, rather than just moving in to obliterate the idea we should start talking in terms of fewer councillors perhaps, of looking at the whole structure of local government and of paying local councillors a decent salary for doing a good job.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Member will wish history to record that he was an influential and important member of the Greater London council. If he felt as he has just said and was unhappy with councillors twin tracking, being local councillors and members of the GLC staff in high positions, why were there so many of them? Why did it seem to be the policy of the Labour party to promote so many people who were in Labour party positions or were Labour councillors elsewhere to high positions in the GLC? He really cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Banks: I did not say that I was unhappy; I said that I was not happy, which is not quite the same thing. Words are supposed to mean something in this place, and there is


a difference there. I was not happy, but that unhappiness arose not because people were twin tracking but because the system of local government and remuneration of councillors is all wrong.
I would be much more in favour of seeing whether there was a problem if the Government were prepared to make some serious proposals for looking at the way in which we remunerate local councillors who do a good job. We are not looking at it in that root and branch fashion. We are looking at it at a superficial level, and this symbolises the Government's approach. It is superficial and layered with malice, venom and bigotry. That is the way in which the Government approach local government.
Coming now to the £13,500 cut-off, it is typical of this Government that they attach a price to everything; they set an economic point at which there will be a cut-off. That is not a qualitative argument; it is a quantitative argument based on money. The only thing that the Arthur Daleys on the Government Benches who now run this country understand a little bit about is money. That is their level. They know nothing about the qualitative arguments that the Opposition are addressing.
The figure of £13,500 relates back, I suppose, to Widdicombe's point about principal officers. But things have moved on since then. If the figure stays at £13,500, and assuming that the Government are around for a few years yet, in the end, logically, virtually every local government officer will come within the category. Clearly the Minister, when he replies, must tell us what he intends to do about uprating the £13,500 figure because things have moved on even while the Bill has been in Committee. It is difficult now to be precise about the number of officers in local government who will be caught, but it may be as many as 130,000. I urge the Minister to tell us because, although the Government said originally that the ban would affect a mere 3 per cent. of local government employees, that figure has gone up and I want the Minister to give precisely his estimate of the number of local government officers affected.
We also need to know from the Minister what he means by political activity. Will it be so ridiculous as to include canvassing or putting up a poster? That has nothing to do with the impartial advice that local officers are giving; it has to do with their own civil rights, I would have thought, and therefore cannot be seen as affecting them in terms of the advice they give.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) mentioned his dear old dad, who was a local government officer. I am sure that he gave very good and impartial advice. It is a pity that some of it did not rub off on his son. I understand that the hon. Member used to be a member of the Labour party, so clearly his dad told him some good things. I only wish that his dad would carry on telling him those things because he has clearly gone all wrong since. His dad, being a sufficiently senior officer, would clearly have come within the terms of our clause. That shows that, as ever, we are being wholly reasonable.
We say that there are two good reasons why it is right that senior officers whose purpose is to give advice should not be involved in political activity, certainly of the twin-tracking sort. First, they do not have the time and, secondly, their advice is crucial. But it is nonsense to talk about £13,500 at those sorts of levels. That is the point at

which it matters. The Government are not concerned with the sort of advice that they are giving; they are saying that because that is how much they earn they should not be in a position to give advice to elected members because that advice could be called into question. That is nonsense. First, the Minister must tell us how many local government officers will be included in his net and, secondly, what is the scope of political activity. How will he revise those salary levels or levels of political activity?
This is a crude attempt by the Government to smash local authorities into a shape that appeals to Conservative Members. That approach can be seen running through the Bill. There is no finesse about it; they are simply trying to smash local authorities. That is their philosophy and their approach and that is why we ask all reasonable Members —there are one or two, although I cannot see them at the moment, but no doubt they will be coming in soon—to support us in the Lobby when they realise the appalling nature of the Bill.

7 pm

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) seemed to be worried by the fact that some Glasgow district councillors also work for Strathclyde regional council. That does not seem to worry the voters in Glasgow who continue to vote in overwhelming numbers for representatives of the parties who oppose this legislation. So dominant is the Labour party in Strathclyde region that the main opposition party on Glasgow district council after Labour is composed of six Labour councillors who have temporarily had the whip withdrawn as a matter of internal discipline. They outnumber the Tory group in the council by almost two to one. Conservative Members should listen to the people of Scotland rather than use them as an example to substantiate their arguments.
While I am on that subject, let me tell the Minister that the only people who are not displaying political posters in Glasgow, Central this week are members of the Conservative party who are so ashamed of being associated with legislation of this kind that they will not display their own party's posters in the by-election.
I support the new clauses, particularly new clause 4 which has a specifically Scottish angle. It proposes that no regulations can be laid until a code of practice has been agreed with the local authority associations. In Scotland, that means with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It also means the politicians who have been elected by the Scottish people. At the moment, restrictions have been imposed by a Government who in no way represent the views of the Scottish people. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is present and that he represents a Scottish constituency, but the most recent opinion poll in Scotland which was published this morning shows support for the Conservative party standing at 7 per cent. That shows that the Government do not have a democratic mandate for imposing a new system of local government to serve people who in no way support the views of the Conservative party.
It is particularly important that the Minister should give a definition of what will constitute the kind of political activity that will be restricted. It has been said that there is a difference between political actions and actions which


become a movement. Scotland has many unique movements. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is almost completely unique in that respect. Only this week in Glasgow, Central he claimed to be the true inheritor of the Red Clydesider, Jimmy Maxton, who once served well in the House. Yet at the same time he was picking up a fat salary from Rupert Murdoch's son—the same Rupert Murdoch who sacked 6,000 print workers. I would venture to suggest that had Jimmy Maxton been alive today he certainly would not have been a member of the Scottish National party working for the son of Rupert Murdoch and taking the side of the capitalists against the print workers, as the hon. Gentleman has done so unimpressively in Scotland recently.
Let us take a campaign such as that for a Scottish assembly. I hope that the Minister is listening because this is an important point which the Scottish people want clarified. Will belonging to such a campaign be a politically restricted activity? Will local government officers who earn more than £13,500 a year be denied the right to go along to the local branch meeting of their campaign for a Scottish Assembly, to go on demonstrations and to put posters in their windows in support of such a campaign?
Will the same thing apply to the new phenomenon in Scotland—the Scottish constitutional convention? Will a local government officer be restricted from expressing support for that convention? Those are important matters that must be clarified by the Minister which to date have not been clarified.
I remember a song when I was at school about a cruel law against the wearing of the green, which was a way of trying to restrict support for Irish home rule. If the Minister does not clarify the position, we shall know that this is a direct attempt to restrict support for Scottish home rule by making it illegal for many thousands of local government officers to express their support for that concept. It is important to have that matter cleared up.
Many Scottish people are taking part in non-payment campaigns against the poll tax. Will that become a politically restricted activity under the Act? I am a member of a Scottish committee of 100 who refuse to pay the poll tax and there are also many local government officers who earn more than £13,500 a year. If the Bill is enacted, will they he forbidden from taking such action next year when the poll tax is implemented in Scotland, or will they be allowed to take part in such non-party political activities?
In Committee I asked about local government officers being elected to schools boards in Scotland. Since then, teachers' unions in Scotland have made it clear that they will work with school boards and use them as one of the main engines by which to oppose the Government's privatisation policies in Scottish education. Will local government officers be able to take part in school boards and join in campaigns run by school boards against the Government education policy in Scotland without being restricted from doing so under the Bill? Teaching members of the board will be able to do that, but if they happen to be a parent member who is also a local government officer earning more than £13,500 a year, will they be restricted from openly and publicly attacking Government policy in respect of opting out and privatising Scottish education? That must be sorted out, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear when he replies.
I want to clarify how far the clause will apply to local government officers. In Committee on 7 March I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for

Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), to consider the problem of a technical officer who was a councillor in Strathkelvin and Bearsden district council and who worked for Glasgow city council as a structural engineer. I asked whether technical officers would be exempt from restrictions placed upon politically restricted posts if they earned more than £13,500 a year. The Minister said:
It depends on what they are paid, whether they regularly advise the council, have contact with the media, and whether it can be believed that because of their position on the council they have some influence on the public. There are provisions in the Bill for such cases to be considered on their merits" —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1989; c. 156–7.]
Recently in Dundee there was much political controversy about the safety of Tayside house, the headquarters of Tayside regional council. If that man had been a structural engineer working for Tayside regional council, he could have been earning more than £13,500 a year and advising the council on matters which affected that building. He certainly could have had contact with the media over that matter and he could have influenced public opinion by what he said in respect of that building. Would such an officer be in a politically restricted post in those circumstances?
It is important that the Minister should clarify such details, because the Government are interfering in matters that they know nothing about. They know nothing about Scottish local government, yet they are imposing this new system on Scotland against the will of the Scottish people, and the Opposition will continue to resist them.

Mr. Pike: Is it not the case that under the Government's competition policy a person may be employed in an identical post in a private company as that of someone working in local government and yet not be subject to restrictions?

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Recently in Dundee the cleaning contract for Dundee schools was lost to a private contractor because the SNP and the Tories voted for that to happen. As a consequence, Tayside regional council employees are cleaning schools in Angus, Perth and Kinross, whereas private sector employees are cleaning schools in Dundee. The same situation could arise in other sectors of local government service, with people providing the same service in various parts of the region being treated completely differently.
Private sector employees will not be subject to the Bill's provisions but anyone working for the regional council will be. That is a mighty big flaw. The House does not understand or know Scottish local government and has no right to interfere in it. It should be left to the next Labour Government to create a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scottish local government in the way that it should be dealt with.

Mr. Cryer: New clause 2 is a particularly strong indicator of the vindictive nature of the whole Bill. The matter under consideration goes back to the Local Government Act 1972, when there was another act of aggression by a Tory Government against local authorities. It proposed the abolition of a large number of smaller local authorities, all the municipal boroughs, and rural and urban district councils. They were all wiped out by the 1972 Act, and one of the Government's arguments


for taking that course was that as larger local authorities would involve important decision taking they would attract the right calibre of officers.
Prior to 1974 and the operation of the 1972 Act, the majority of local government work was undertaken entirely by amateurs in their spare time, outside working hours. However, the very large local authorities created by the then Tory Government placed enormous burdens on people and, as a consequence, a small number of them became involved in the business of electing councillors who then had to look round for some way of supplementing their income, and they obtained local authority jobs.
Restrictions are already placed on a local authority employee who is also an elected member, so many councillors have been compelled to look outside their own areas for employment. It sometimes happens that they work for one local authority and live in the area of another, where they represent local people in a perfectly normal and proper way. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned, the burdens placed on local authority representatives are now so great that councillors in key positions find it almost impossible to sustain a full-time job.
There is a marked difference between employees in the public sector and those in the private sector. Company directors are given as much time off as they want by the board. Tory party representation in a local authority often comprises people who have a place in the board room or who are solicitors, who find it easy to get time off. That is not always the case, but it often is. However, wage earners must always obtain permission to get time off, and it is not always given. Employees of large privatised organisations such as British Telecom are given only a certain number of days off each year, which they must allocate very carefully. Such are the difficulties that have precipitated the decision by many councillors to find local authority employment.
7.15 pm
How many people find themselves both representing a local authority and working for one? Is the figure 20, 30 or 40? What percentage of the total number of councillors does the Minister seek to embrace in his legislation? He has not mentioned any number. The fact is that the vast majority of local authority committees and full councils are served by councillors who have other jobs, and who believe that they can best do so by advocating certain political views.
It is incumbent on the Minister to provide evidence of the need for the measure he proposes. What evidence is there that there has been damage done by the advocacy of so-called prejudicial information because officers of a certain local authority are Labour or Conservative members of another council? It is an implied term in an employee's contract of employment that he will use his skills and abilities to the full. Is there any recorded case of a member of the public, body or institution suing a local government officer for breach of his contract of employment, in failing to display the required standard of quality advice?

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: My hon. Friend will acknowledge that throughout the

country many independents win local authority seats. Are the Government suggesting that independent councillors have no part to play? Will the Bill prohibit a local government officer earning more than £13,500 a year from standing as an independent for another local authority?

Mr. Cryer: That may be another implication of the clause, and no doubt the Minister will guide us through the minefield as to what is and what is not deemed to be political activity.
New clause 4 concerns the publication of a new voluntary code of practice. It has been suggested that such a code will have no effect and be of little use. However, the Government are producing codes of practice every week. They apply them to health and safety at work, for example. If Conservative Members are so critical of such an arrangement, why have they not made their views known? If a code of practice is good enough for health and safety at work, the Minister should at least consider one to serve as guidance in the way that new clause 4 proposes. It is an area where a code of practice would be useful. I have reservations about a code's value in areas such as health and safety, but in the context proposed, one would be admirable in its application. The Government will not accept new clause 4 because they are motivated by vindictiveness, not by logic or reason.
Will membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament be deemed political activity? The Minister may say, "Of course, because I want to do whatever damage I can to CND." What about the Campaign for Peace and Security through NATO, which one might argue is equivalent to CND and is run by Lady Olga Maitland—who presumably has the Minister's support? Will membership of that count as political activity?
Let us suppose that local government officers go to a meeting of their trade union, the National and Local Government Officers Association, and NALGO discusses its affiliation to the Labour party, which it does from time to time, although it is not yet affiliated. Will those local authority members who are covered by this sweeping legislation have to leave the meeting because they might be reported by other NALGO members and be barred from political activity or discussion? Will they be excluded from the political arguments about whether NALGO should be affiliated to the Labour party? It is an absurd minefield.
My hon. Friends raised the issue of putting political party bills in windows. Will the various snoopers appointed under other sections of the Act go round checking local government officers' windows to ensure that they are free from posters carrying any suggestion other than that people should vote, and do not suggest for whom they should vote?
If the Minister cannot produce, as I suspect that he cannot, any evidence of damage to the impartiality of advice and the numbers of people which these draconian measures will involve, why does he not bear in mind the fact that, when all is said and done, even if we accept some of the criticisms about there being two jobs for the boys and girls, the publicity of such arrangements is always at its most intense locally. The local papers often have a field day with such arguments and the local voters make their judgment on it. If they do not like it, they are entitled to say to the candidate that they do not like the fact that he or she has a job in another local authority and is a councillor in theirs and so will not vote for him or her. The Minister's case is untenable on every count.
The new clauses accept the desirability of senior local government officers being excluded and, by and large, the vast majority are. The Minister can tell us the percentage of those who do not take part in political activity and the tiny percentage to whom this will apply.
The proposals are modest in scope and reasonable in the way in which they lay down safeguards before the Minister makes regulations. What sort of regulations will the Minister produce? We want to know because the erosion of political rights varies from legislation passed by Ministers who are largely vindictive to the use of tanks in Tiananmen square in China. It is because of the erosion of the right to argue for a set of values that conflict begins and develops. The Bill is an exact formula for the development of doubt, misunderstanding and, above all, conflict.

Mr. Winnick: Like my hon. Friends, I work on the assumption, however old fashioned or outdated it may be to Conservative Members, that one of the main functions of the House is to defend people's rights. The most crucial function of a democracy is that Parliament should defend people's rights to go about their lawful business and exercise their rights. If those rights are to be undermined and completely taken away, it is a serious matter for the House. If we do not give it proper consideration, we shall certainly be failing in our duty.
I am suspicious of the Government's motives. Like my hon. Friends, I think that they are motivated by sheer intolerance. Even if I was not of that view, I would bear in mind their conduct over the past 10 years and be highly suspicious of any move which they made to restrict or undermine civil liberty, on which they have an appalling record. They have banned union membership at GCHQ and taken measures against the broadcasting authorities. Fortunately, a healthy suspicion always exists, not only amongst Labour Members but in the country at large.
There is no reason why anyone earning the magical sum of £13,500 should be banned from being elected to a local authority. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) conceded that at times they were not always happy with twin tracking. I join them because there have been cases with which I have not always been happy. If abuse occurs, those cases should come before the Government so that if they believe action should be taken they can produce evidence.
However, I am not in favour of a blanket ban. If abuse has occurred which, for the sake of argument, I concede it may have done, why should there be a blanket ban covering everyone? Some Tory councillors will be adversely affected, but in the main the Government work on the assumption that the majority of councillors or prospective councillors covered by the ban will be Labour ones. If it were the other way round and the majority of people caught in the ban were Tories, I believe that no such measure would have come before us.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will my hon. Friend comment on another kind of twin-tracking which goes on in the House and involves those who have highly placed and powerful directorships in private industry? Is not that twin tracking infinitely more harmful?

Mr. Winnick: I do not want to be led astray, but I must say that great minds think alike. I have a note here to say that the worst form of twin-tracking and the worst kind of abuse is that of Tory Members with countless

consultancies so that at times we do not know whether their loyalty and devotion is to their own constituents or to the companies which employ them. As my hon. Friend said, that is a far greater subject of concern than anything involving councillors.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, new clause 2 puts forward a compromise. If we work on the assumption that the most senior positions in local government should not be occupied by those who are councillors or who intend to be councillors in another local authority, it would be far enough. If that were accepted by the Government, it would be an honourable way out for them, without introducing a ban that affects the most junior officers. As has been pointed out, the limit is now £13,500, but what will happen after the next pay rise, next year or the year after? Are we really to work on the assumption that even the most junior people in local government should have their political rights taken away, and that the right to stand for public office at local level, which has always been respected, should simply be taken away and abolished because the Conservative Government consider that they should be motivated by malice and intolerance?
The Minister has not made the case and it is interesting that Conservative Members have not done so either. They have not produced evidence of abuse or of any local authorities having acted in a way to show that such a measure should come into operation.
I began by saying that we should be extremely wary of any measure which undermines people's rights, and I stand by that. Unfortunatly, not a single Tory Member has seen fit even to express some reservations. What has the House of Commons come to when not one Government Member says, "All right, perhaps the Government have a case, but I have certain reservations on the basis of civil rights. I believe in people's rights and democratic rights?" Not one Conservative Member has seen fit to do that, which is a sorry commentary on the Tory party of today.

Mr. Gummer: This has been an interesting debate, not least for those of us who have sat through similar debates in Committee, because it has shown a major shift in the position of the Opposition parties.
In Committee, there was no kind of twin-tracking that did not find its advocates on the Opposition Benches. There was no question of Opposition Members saying, "Of course we do not mean that senior officers should be allowed to engage in twin-tracking." Today we have heard what we expected to hear: that the Labour party and, to some extent, the Liberals have learnt that their espousal of this kind of policy—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I have had some chance to listen to the debate, and now I should like to reply. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I have to say, he can decide whether it is true when I have finished. There is no doubt that until now Opposition Members have been prepared to defend almost any kind of twin-tracking, but now it is extremely unpopular with them.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made the reasonable comment that people from his part of the world were very angry because our proposals were based on what he described as isolated


gross abuses in London. There are indeed a number of gross abuses in London, but many take place elsewhere. Can it be reasonable, for example, for the chief executive of Clydebank council to be seen as an independent adviser to that council when he was an elected Labour member of Glasgow city council?

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way; I will complete what I have to say. I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Can it be reasonable for the chief executive of Llin valley district council in south Wales to have been at the same time chairman of the local Labour party? How can someone claim to be an independent adviser to a council and all its members if at exactly the same time he takes a clear and senior party-political role elsewhere? I do not believe that Derbyshire is in London, but Mr. Reg Race was appointed chief executive of Derbyshire county council. Even Mr. Race found the leader of Derbyshire county council impossible to work with, although he took longer to do so than many others.
The Labour leader of Bradford council was—and is now, although he is no longer leader of the council—anti-privatisation officer of Wakefield council. That does not make it easy to believe that his advice on privatisation could be seen as suitable for the whole council; after all, he clearly took a party-political view as Labour leader in Bradford. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may say that the electorate has a chance to decide. Bradford did decide: it decided that it did not want its affairs run in that way.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Perry Barr that abuses are widespread, and that they take place outside London. In London they are not isolated: 24 of the 40 members of Greenwich borough council—

Mr. Cryer: Fewer than half.

Mr. Gummer: Twenty-four is not less than half of 40. The hon. Gentleman ought to listen; I have listened very carefully to him.
It is said in the local paper, and not denied by the local Labour party, that 24 members of Greenwich council would be affected by these proposals. All that the Government are saying is that in the past local government has recognised that, if an officer is to be effective and to take any real part in advising those of all parties in the local authority, he must be able to show that his advice is wholly above question and is entirely impartial. For a long time individuals have made the choice that that is the role in which they wish to serve the public.
Let me say, as one who both enjoys and respects what the hon. Member for Perry Barr has to say to the House, that I believe in good, independent local government—to use his words. Evidence of that is contained in this very part of the Bill. I do not believe that good, independent local government is possible if officers in one local authority purport to be giving independent advice when they are active members of the next-door local council, figuring in a political role. That is why the Government have made their suggestions, not out of their own head but on the recommendation of the Widdicombe committee.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) should spend less time being affected by the generality of his speech, which we hear time after time with the various names and places altered, but which always expresses the same desperate desire to see the same terrible, nasty reasons for everything. The hon. Gentleman must be so miserable: everybody and every circumstance is nasty, suspicious and unpleasant to him. I am so pleased that I am not his psychoanalyst. Something very nasty must have happened in the woodshed at some stage to cause this embarrassing state of affairs.
However, the hon. Gentleman need not be suspicious about the £13,500. It was not an arbitrary figure, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South suggested; he would know that if he had read the Committee proceedings in detail. It represents an attempt to provide a clear and simple figure to meet what the Widdicombe committee has proposed for principal officers. As it was obvious that the term "principle officer" meant different things in different areas and authorities, we tried to fix the level in the easiest possible way. If there is a better way, I shall be happy to employ it. I have already given an undertaking to take powers to increase the level, so that the problems that the hon. Member for Walsall, North—with his suspicious mind—might expect will not arise.
The suggestion that we are removing democratic rights, made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and others, is entirely untrue. First, it suggests that the proposal applies to far more people who are called civil servants. We consider it important to ask civil servants to take an independent position to protect other people's democratic rights, and the same is true of local government officers. We have not gone as far as the independent Widdicombe committee would wish. We arranged for people to be able to appeal to an adjudicator, with no absolute ban. Many of the examples that hon. Members have given clearly show that—as they know—the people involved would be excluded under the rules implemented by the adjudicator.
Let me make it clear that I am not misleading the House about what the hon. Member for Truro said in Committee. Both in Committee and here, however, he has seemed to suggest that some people could be excluded, but that he did not approve of the exclusions in the Bill. If it is possible to exclude some people, it is difficult to say how impossible it will be to exclude others. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: he cannot tell the House at length how difficult the arrangements would be when he starts from the position that some people ought to be excluded—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman just let me finish this point?
In the country as a whole it is generally accepted that the best way in which local government, and indeed national government, can work is for everyone to have a clear view of the distinction between those who are party-politically elected and motivated and have obvious party-political concerns, and those whose job is to serve equally parties of any kind that are elected by the public. That distinction has always been maintained by the good practice of officers, and has never before needed definition. It is sad that the Government have had to present these proposals, which are based on the Widdicombe report, because the public as a whole welcome the proposals,


having seen the decline in public decision making by those who thought that the two could be mixed. If only we lived in a world where we did not have to legislate upon such matters, it would be a better world. It should be a matter of shame to the hon. Member for Walsall, North that those who are most likely to be caught are members of his own party.

Mr. Blunkett: It was not the driving of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) that I questioned; it was his judgment. I question, too, the judgment of Conservative Members who have argued that independence and impartiality depend on people hiding their true democratic views in an open society. That is not accepted in West Germany, under the system that we imposed upon it, or in any other part of the world.
7.45 pm
New clause 4 deals with the majority of the points that the Minister has made. We could all dream up individual items. We could name the leader of Bournemouth council, Councillor Trenchard, the head of a housing association which has been asked to take over Bournemouth's council housing. The local council is willing to give him £20,000 to put forward the case on behalf of his own housing association, in an effort to persuade council house tenants to change landlords. We could all dream up examples of that kind if it is a slanging match that the Minister wants. But it is not. It is about whether we believe that to take away people's democratc rights safeguards democracy.
If it is good enough for local authority officers on £13,500 and above, why is it not good enough for teachers? As an elected member of Sheffield city council, why should I not have been disqualified when other people on the same salary would have been disqualified? It is nonsense. The only reason can be that the Conservative party has added up the figures and believes that it has more headmasters and teachers serving local government than we do. There is no logic to it.
Opposition Members have put forward clearly who should and who should not be restricted because of their political activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) did so. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made exactly the same speech tonight as he did in Committee, except that he used different jokes on this occasion. Some Opposition Members wanted a code of practice to be established, but we were not allowed to make that point in Committee. We have been allowed to do so tonight. I am very glad. If implemented, the code of practice would provide a year in which we could test whether it would work. The Bill would not be implemented in its present form unless the code was proved not to work. That is a perfectly reasonable compromise on which the whole House should unite.
Let us lift the uncertainty from the tens of thousands of people who might want to stand in next year's elections and who might also wish to seek selection as candidates in the general election. We should lift the uncertainty from those who are worried about taking minor office in a political party, or who want to he able to canvass, to speak or to write for political parties in our democracy. Let us lift that uncertainty. Let us make sure that we are able to hold our heads high by defending democracy rather than removing it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 227.

Division No.237]
[7.43 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Ashton, Joe
Illsley, Eric


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ingram, Adam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Kennedy, Charles


Barron, Kevin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Battle, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Beckett, Margaret
Leadbitter, Ted


Bell, Stuart
Leighton, Ron


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lewis, Terry


Bermingham, Gerald
Litherland, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Blair, Tony
Loyden, Eddie


Blunkett, David
McAllion, John


Bradley, Keith
McCartney, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meacher, Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Coleman, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Corbett, Robin
Morgan, Rhodri


Cousins, Jim
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cryer, Bob
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cummings, John
Mullin, Chris


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Murphy, Paul


Cunningham, Dr John
Nellist, Dave


Darling, Alistair
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
O'Neill, Martin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pendry, Tom


Doran, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Douglas, Dick
Powell, William (Corby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Prescott, John


Eastham, Ken
Primarolo, Dawn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fearn, Ronald
Radice, Giles


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Redmond, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Fisher, Mark
Richardson, Jo


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Flynn, Paul
Robinson, Geoffrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Foster, Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Fraser, John
Rowlands, Ted


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Gould, Bryan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Snape, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Hardy, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Howells, Geraint
Turner, Dennis






Wall, Pat
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. Frank Cook and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Frank Haynes.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Allason, Rupert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amess, David
Franks, Cecil


Amos, Alan
Freeman, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
French, Douglas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fry, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Gardiner, George


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkinson, David
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gregory, Conal


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, Jerry


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Burns, Simon
Heddle, John


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irvine, Michael


Conway, Derek
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (StamCd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lightbown, David


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Favell, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maples, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Fookes, Dame Janet
Miller, Sir Hal


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman





Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mitchell, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Summerson, Hugo


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raffan, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Warren, Kenneth


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, John


Rowe, Andrew
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Hon Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, Sir William



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

POLITICALLY RESTRICTED POSTS

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 3, line 23, at end insert 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 130, in page 3, line 24, at beginning insert
`Subject to paragraph (h) below'.
Government amendment No. 217.
No. 200, in page 3, line 34, leave out '13,500' and insert `25,000'.
No. 201, in page 3, line 34, leave out '13,500' and insert `18,000'.
No. 202, in page 3, line 34, leave out '13,500' and insert `16,000'.
No. 129, in page 3, line 39, at end insert—
'(1A) The annual rate of remuneration applicable under subsection ( I )(h) above, shall not include any payment specified in Schedule (Exclusions from salary limit) below (except, in the case of a bonus payment, where the payment is made on a regular basis such that it is regarded by both the employer and the employee as part of the basic remuneration of the post) and the Secretary of State shall by Order maintain the value of the amount in real terms in each year following the passing of this Act at a level at least equivalent to the value in the first year of operation of this Part.'.


No. 133, in page 3, line 39, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsections 1(g) and 1(h) above shall not apply to any person who is employed on a manual grade by a local authority, or to a post occupied by such an employee.'.
Government amendments Nos. 218 and 219.
No. 134, in page 3, line 49, at end insert—
'(2A) Before the making of any regulations by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(b) above, or the issuing of any guidance to local authorities in respect of their duties under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations and such other organisations or individuals appear to him to be concerned.'.
In clause 3, Government amendments Nos. 220 and 221.
No. 136, in page 5, line 23, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs (f) to'.
No. 138, in page 5, line 23, leave out 'and' and insert 'or—
(aa) that, apart from this subsection, an activity in respect of which an appeal has been made by that individual would be regarded as falling within the terms of any restriction incorporated into his contract of employment by regulations made under section 1(5) above; and, in either case.'.
Amendment No. 157:

New Schedule

`EXCLUSIONS FROM SALARY LIMIT

1. No payment specified in paragraph 2 below shall be included within any limit prescribed for the purposes of Section 2(1)(h).

2. The payments to be excluded shall be any of the following—

(a) any bonus payment for employees in manual grades, except a bonus payment made on a regular basis such that it is regarded by both the employer and the employee as part of the basic remuneration of the post;
(b) any acting-up allowance;
(c) any chargehand responsibility payment for employees in manual grades;
(d) any overtime payment;
(e) any Distant Island Allowance;
(f) any allowance in respect of work connected with the evening letting of local authority premises;
(g) any first aid payment;
(h) any travel or subsistence allowance;
(i) any disturbance allowance;
(j) any car mileage payment;
(k) any accelerated increment;
(l) any lump sum retrospective payment in respect of a grading appeal;
(m) any London or other regional or local weighting allowance;
(n) any other payment specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Gummer: Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 are presented to the House as a result of an undertaking given in Committee that we would place on the face of the Bill the arrangements relating to posts where the annual rate of remuneration exceeds £13,500. It was suggested that they should be placed on the face of the Bill and that is what we have done. I hope that even those who would prefer that we were not doing it in this way will agree to accept the amendments as they meet the desire of Members on both sides in Committee.

Mr. William O'Brien: There was a great deal of discussion in Committee on the matter, but the Minister has not addressed the serious situation that we consider will be created by this part of the Bill. Politically restricted posts are significant and important and the

amendments standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends address the issues that the Minister and Conservative Members should consider seriously.
Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 133, 136, 138 and 157 are particularly important in the extensive group of amendments referring to politically restricted posts. Amendment No. 130 seeks to add at the beginning of line 24 on page 3 in clause 2:
Subject to paragraph (h) below".
Amendment No. 131 seeks to leave out the word "not" from line 31.
We tabled those amendments because, as the Bill is drafted, many low-paid local authority staff may be designated as holding politically-sensitive posts under clause 2(3) and retrospectively banned from political activity. For example, there are six employees in the Strathclyde regional press and public relations office who are paid far less than £13,500, but who still deal with the public. One can see readily that they have no influence on council policy, but they stand to be caught by the Bill. Those staff, and others like them, will have no right of appeal to an adjudicator, which is the basis of an appeal under this system. Under the Bill, those staff will have no right of appeal to an adjudicator, although their terms and conditions of service will be changed at one fell swoop by the Bill.
8 pm
The Secretary of State will probably say that those staff can use the appeals mechanism in their own authorities, but the employers' side of the local authorities is proposing to withdraw the right of appeal to the National Joint Council as a last resort. That will weaken the appeals mechanism available to low-paid staff. Those people will not even be in a Catch 22 situation. They will be left with no democratic right of appeal as a result of the Bill. They will be politically restricted and there will be no facilities for appeal. Judicial review is not an easy option for those people.
Amendments Nos. 130,131 and 132 seek to raise the ceiling at which political assistants become politically restricted. In Committee, the Minister persisted in describing those posts as "special advisers". I am sure that the Minister will recall my exchange with him in Committee on that very issue. I pointed out in Committee that special advisers are employed by the Department of the Environment and that the Minister has special advisers. In Committee, the Minister referred to them as "special advisers." Despite the fact that most special advisers to Ministers earn considerably more than £13,500, the Bill imposes a salary ceiling for those clause 9 appointments, but does not prevent them from being paid less. Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 seek to exempt lower-paid special advisers from the restriction on political activities. I ask the Minister to consider seriously that junior posts will be caught by the pernicious proposal in the Bill.
Amendment No. 133 is also important. I draw the House's attention to the fact that the Widdicombe report, when evaluating whether being a councillor or otherwise engaged in political activity conflicted with an officer's duty, stated:
there can be no conflict in the case of manual workers.
No distinction was drawn between senior and other manual workers on page 161 of the report.
The Minister asked where the Widdicombe report said that it was not intended to include senior manual workers. On 7 March 1989, the answer was clear. The Government's justification for abandoning the term "principal officer" was that grades could disappear. In other words, the Government are saying that grades as they now apply can disappear. That was one of the reasons given for abandoning the term "principal officer" used in the Widdicombe report.
In accepting part of the Widdicombe committee's recommendation that a general bar should apply at a particular level, the Minister should also look at the Widdicombe committee's arguments. The committee addressed areas of possible conflict of interest and decided that they were unlikely to arise for manual workers. Specific exemption would go some way to re-establishing Widdicombe's link between restriction and responsibility. The Minister has said on more than one occasion that the Government intend to be fair when applying this legislation. The position of manual workers should, therefore, be taken seriously by the Government and manual workers should be exempted from this legislation.
We made this issue abundantly clear in Committee. The £13,500 limit should relate to basic pay, excluding weighting allowances, overtime and index linking. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) pointed out that even the salary award that has been made to certain officers this year brings a further batch of officers into the position where they will be disqualified from taking part in political activities because they will have reached a salary of £13,500. We made it clear in Committee that in considering the salary level as the cut-off point it would be cruel for the Minister not to take into consideration the fact that overtime payments are not consistent. Bonus payments, unless they are agreed bonus payments which are paid regularly, should be taken out of the formula when considering the £13,500 figure. Weighting allowances are a further issue that should be given serious consideration and index linking should also be a part of the formula, if there has to be a ceiling of £13,500. If there has to be a figure, it is only just that index linking should be taken into consideration.
The Bill refers to an annual rate of remuneration, and that will not include one-off payments such as bonuses unless they are so regular that they become part of the rate for the job.
We were told that by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Parliamentary Under-Secrtary of State for the Environment in our deliberations in Committee. The Under-Secretary said that unless bonuses are a regular payment, they should not be taken into consideration. If that principle stands firm, it should be included in the Bill. This is an opportunity for that error to be put right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State also said:
I shall examine carefully and tell the Committee the precise definition of the annual rate of remuneration."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1989; c. 167–68.]
We are still waiting for that definition and I hope that the Minister can give us some clarification on those issues tonight. The best way of doing that would be to accept the amendments because they address the existing anomalies.
Further, the Minister should consider excluding from the provisions any bonus payments made to employees in

manual grades, except bonus payments which are made regularly so that they are regarded by both employer and employee as part of the basic remunerative of the post. I readily accept that regular bonuses could be interpreted as part of the worker's annual wage. However, bonus payments that are not regular should not be included in any ceiling on an employee's salary.
The acting up allowance, where an employee is doing the work of a person of a senior grade for whom he or she is filling in for holidays, sickness or accident, should not be taken into consideration when determining a person's salary under the politically restrictive provisions. In addition, the chargehand responsibility payment for employees in manual grades should also be disregarded. The distant island allowances that apply in some areas of local government as a payment for the inconvenience of where a person works should be disregarded. Allowances in respect of work connected with the evening letting of local authority premises should also be disregarded because there is so much uncertainty about when a person qualifies for that payment.
Some people qualify for extra payments for their first-aid qualifications. It is only fair that such a person should not be disqualified from political activity simply because he or she offers a service to fellow workers which also benefits the employer. Because of the small remuneration paid to that person the disqualification provisions of the Bill should not be applied.
There are a number of issues in these provisions on which I should be tempted to seek to divide the House because I feel so strongly about this. I appeal to the Minister to consider the issues that we have raised and to try to assess the position as it will affect many local government employees.
Widdicombe tried to link political restrictions to levels of responsibility, recognising the need for officers in certain posts to be able to command the respect and trust of all political parties in their capacity to advise councillors and to adjudicate on certain matters. However, manual workers do not fall within the scope of that and accepting the amendments should therefore be considered.
Amendment No. 136 makes the point that the appeals system will not work in its present form. We need to extend the range of the appeals mechanism to posts held by political assistants and to designated posts as well as to those that fall within the salary restriction. That would leave heads of paid service, chief and deputy chief officers and the monitoring officers outside the appeals mechanism. In Committee the Minister stated:
Making an appeal … is open to each individual".— [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 28 February 1989; c. 94.]
That is a misleading statement because the appeals procedure applies only to people holding a politically restricted post by virtue of clause 2(1)(h). That anomaly should be examined in detail and, indeed, our amendment would rectify it. Clause 2(1)(h) refers to people who hold politically restricted posts because they earn £13,500 or more. As drafted, no one else can appeal against all or part of the restriction imposed on them.
While we have the Minister's assurance about the type of restrictions that he envisages, such assurances are not binding on the Secretary of State. To be fair and to offer justice to those employed in local government, the Government should accept this amendment as it would rectify that anomaly. The Secretary of State is being given


sweeping powers and is not bound by the assurance given by the Minister but he would be bound if he were to accept the amendment and if it were enacted.
8.15 pm
Amendment No. 138 would extend the scope of the appeals mechanism to cover political activities as well as the restrictions, or otherwise, of these "political" posts. I have received a letter from a person who has worked as an accountant in local government for over 19 years, which states:
Most important of all, however, the Bill raises a serious question of civil liberties. What I do in my spare time is my business, and I see no reason why that should change simply because I am paid a salary of over £13,500 per annum by the local council. I would like to think that if I wished to join a political party I could do so as a matter of right, and not under special licence from the Secretary of State.
That sums up the general feelings of many people who work in local government. They see the provisions on politically restricted posts as restricting their freedoms outside working hours. That will cause conflict in many ways.
Therefore, I ask the Minister in particular and Conservative Members in general to accept our amendments. They are constructive amendments. They do not try to be difficult or to destroy the Bill. They are simply trying to ensure that justice and fairness are applied to people who work in local government.

Mr. James Wallace: I support this group of amendments, though we face a dilemma in dealing with them. On the one hand there is a degree of opposition generally to what is being done. On the other, we are anxious to ensure that if what is proposed happens, it happens in the fairest way possible.
I support in particular amendments Nos. 129 and 157, which aim to specify with greater certainty what precisely will be taken into account in determining the remuneration, which in turn will determine whether someone is affected by these provisions. Amendment No. 129 would exclude weighting allowances and overtime and would ensure that the figure was index-linked. It would be far from reasonable to have a sum this year which, with the inflation rates that the Government have engineered and which the Chancellor predicts will be even higher, would be worth less in real terms.
I do not know whether the Committee discussed what would happen if someone who was already an elected member of an authority suddenly found that, because of a pay increase, he had reached the disqualification figure. Would that mean a series of by-elections throughout the country?
When this matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister promised to examine it carefully and explain the precise definition of the annual rate of remuneration. Not having been a member of the Committee, I do not know what transpired. But the fact that we are now debating the matter on the Floor of the House is indicative of the fact that the Minister did not explain precisely what definition was being used.
Amendment No. 157 details a number of items which could be included in a person's remuneration, and it seeks to exclude them when determining the figure. I was particularly attracted by the item "any distant island allowance" because many people employed in local government in my constituency are in receipt of a distant island allowance. In my constituency, people are employed

by single-tier authorities and there is no question of them, even at present, being allowed to stand for their local authorities—unless one was in the unlikely situation of living in Orkney and working in Shetland, though, of course, the plane timetables would not permit that to happen.
The Montgomery committee, which was charged by the Government with the task of examining the powers and functions of the islands authorities, received strong representations to the effect that there should be an allowance for people in local government islands council areas to stand for their authorities.
Consider the case, for example, of Shetland, where more than 10 per cent. of the electorate is employed by the local authority, if teaching staff are included. That is a sizeable proportion of the electorate in the population of the islands area to exclude from the right to participate in local government. It will be thought that the end of the world has arrived when it is realised that when people have been pressing for the opposite view to be taken and are saying that some relaxation should be allowed to occur, far from that happening, the Government are tightening things up, and that there can be no hope of some relaxation for the islands areas.
The three SLD amendments are designed, first, to insert a limit of £25,000 to underscore the policy that my hon. Friends and I have reiterated. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—who has departed temporarily for a much-earned respite and meal—has said, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, that when replying to the debate on this matter, the Minister misrepresented him.
It has been our policy that the limits should apply to chief officers and deputy chief officers. We accept that in some parts of the country the position has been open to abuse. It remains our view that, outwith chief and deputy chief officers, what is proposed is draconian and will curtail the fundamental rights of people to participate in local democracy. Hence our amendment to insert £25,000 instead of £13,500. We believe that by fixing it at that level our policy of limiting the exclusion to chief and deputy chief officers would be achieved.
Amendment No. 201, which would insert £18,000, is a less acceptable alternative. It would achieve the stated aim of excluding all those officers who come into regular contact with councillors, who attend committees or who give political advice in all but the smallest authorities. Going further down the scale, amendment No. 202 would achieve the same aims but include the smallest authorities.
The Government must explain why they would allow civil servants earning considerably more than £13,500 to play prominent roles in local government, while not allowing local authority manual workers even to be allowed to be considered to stand for election. I raise that matter with a degree of apprehension because it might give the Government ideas about becoming even tighter towards civil servants. I hope that they will not do that. The Bill goes much too far already in limiting the ability of people to play a constructive part in the local democratic process.
In many parts of my constituency, people stand as independents for local government. We are here telling people, "You will not play a part in local government. Your contribution is not welcome and is not required." That diminishes our democracy and therefore I hope—


though I suspect it is a triumph of optimism over experience—that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments.

Mr. McAllion: I support amendment No. 157. The Minister said that he had agreed to include the figure of £13,500 on the face of the Bill. Having agreed to that, it is incumbent on him to state clearly what payments will be taken into consideration when calculating that £13,500.
In Scotland, the local authority areas cover large swathes of countryside. For example, Strathclyde region covers almost half of Scotland. Other regions are also large. The Highland and Tayside regions and my region cover large swathes of the Highlands, including Perthshire and all the Angus glens. Yet the administrative centre of the region is in the southern extremity, at Dundee.
Many local government officers either live in Dundee and have to travel out to the various parts of the region or live on the outskirts of the region and come into the centre, to Dundee, to work. As a result, payments such as travel and subsistence allowances and disturbance and car mileage payments do not reflect any sort of seniority in the local government structure. They simply reflect the fact that the officers must travel large distances.
It is important, therefore, that those payments are excluded from the calculation of the £13,500. If not, the provision will go against the spirit of the Widdicombe report, and I am sure that the Minister does not intend that those payments should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will appreciate that there are different ways of achieving the end, and we have tried to take the figure which approximates to what the Widdicombe committee saw as representing those who should have an absolute ban on taking part in political activities. We then made it much less onerous by ensuring that, either individually or by groups, people could be excluded from that. So most of the people of whom he speaks—manual workers and the like—are likely, certainly by category, to be excluded. That will not be unreasonable, and the way in which we have laid it down seems to be the best way of proceeding.
When it comes to the question of what the £13,500 means, we have said that it means "at the annual rate" of £13,500. That would exclude any travelling or subsistence allowances of the kind to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred. That is the case absolutely categorically and without question.
It would also exclude any kind of irregular payments. It would be only what is regularly the salary or wages. Sometimes part of that is called a bonus, but if it is on a regular basis—a distinction which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made—it is not unreasonable to make a distinction between that and what is irregular, comes occasionally and is not part of the general. There should be no difficulty in that respect.
I have also given an undertaking to uprate the figure to keep it at the level we mean it to be, which is the equivalent of principal officer, as the Widdicombe committee requested. I do not want to tie it to a specific uprating or a specific increase in the cost of living because its purpose is not to be an index of remuneration, but to try to obtain a figure that approximates to that of the principal officer

and then to maintain that. There is no intention to extend the provision to all sorts of people, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Normanton did not mean that. However, one Opposition Member suggested that we should spread the provision downwards until the office boy would be caught. I gave an undertaking in Committee, and I am happy to repeat it tonight—

Mr. O'Brien: The proposed £13,500 figure relates to the bottom of the principal officer scale. Would it not be fairer to set it at the half-way mark because otherwise it will restrict minor principal officers? Will the Minister reconsider the cut-off figure?

Mr. Gummer: The House would not think that to be a reasonable argument, would it? An independent committee recommended that the level should be set at principal officer. Because of the different ways that gradings are considered in different parts of the country, it was difficult to achieve uniformity. We felt that the figure of £13,500 met, as well as was possible, the committee's recommendation. I accept that it is at the bottom end of the principal officer scale, but it is intended to catch a bag of all those above that level.
The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that we have introduced into the system the opportunity for anyone outside the politically restricted categories to appeal to the adjudicator. He could say, "I am earning more than that, but what I do is clearly not relevant to what is envisaged in the Bill." We have written into the Bill, through an amendment—because the Opposition wanted us to do so—that the adjudication officer should take into account the elements that relate to how one defines what is a politically restricted grade. We have been careful about that. It is not an unreasonable measure because it will affect only a limited number of local government workers. To ensure that the line drawn is not so firm that it causes the difficulties referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we have included the adjudication procedure and tried to make it as clear as possible. I think that, in general, people outside the House will think it to be a reasonable mechanism.
I accept that large numbers of civil servants will be involved and there are different arrangements to deal with how they react in different circumstances. At present, a general adjudication system is not available to civil servants, and I am glad that it has been included in this provision because it fits particular needs. I suspect that large groups of people will be excluded because of the nature of their activities. Many individuals will also be excluded. However, it is important to recognise that the public will know that those who have decided that their way of helping the general community should be through the business of advising elected members must restrict themselves to that activity when they reach a level at which that is especially appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from someone who said that what he did in his spare time was his own business. There are few, if any, officers in local government who subscribe to that. Most people who make a career in local government would say, "What I do in the whole of my life should be consistent with my role of advising the whole of a committee and the whole of the council." I cannot understand how an adviser to a council could possibly, at the same time, be chairman of the local Labour


party or a leading figure in the local Conservative party. However eminent the hon. Gentleman's correspondent may be, I do not think that what he quoted is correct.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister made his last point out of context, which may be indicative of the whole Bill. We said in Committee, on more than one occasion, that chief executives, chief education officers, those in charge of departments and those advising the council should be included in the scope of the provision. I have been talking about such people as caretakers, inspectors at public works departments or plumbers who, because of the structure of their local authorities, could be earning above the ceiling. The provision could catch a junior who works in the information office of his local authority but is paid less than £13,500. Surely it is right to say that such people are entitled to do what they wish with their spare time.

Mr. Gummer: There is a distinction between those two elements. Most of those who the hon. Gentleman first quoted will inevitably be excluded by the operations of the adjudicator—

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister does not know that.

Mr. Gummer: I do not know that because the directions under which the adjudicator will operate—which we said we would include in the Bill—mean that he will understand exactly the sorts of people involved.
The Opposition are taking a new stance. In Committee I referred to a Conservative councillor on one council who was also the assistant housing director of another council, dealing with the allocation of housing for individual families in a neighbouring council area. I said that I did not think that to be a proper relationship. I was perfectly prepared to say that even though he is a Conservative councillor.
I ask the hon. Gentleman once more whether it is proper for the chief executive of a district council also to be chairman of the local Labour party. Is it proper to be the chief executive of a Scottish local authority and also a Labour councillor in another local authority? The hon. Gentleman has not yet been prepared, as in honour he should be, to say that that is improper. Until he is prepared to say so, I find the Labour party's sudden conversion rather odd. It knows that the public are in favour of the provision, so it is now trying to bow to public opinion.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 217, in page 3, line 29, leave out from 'delegated)' to end of line 39.

No. 218, in page 3, line 41, leave out from 'of to 'posts' in line 45 and insert
`such of the following posts under the authority, namely—

(a) the full time posts the annual rate of remuneration in respect of which is or exceeds £13,500 or such higher amount as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify;
(b) the part time posts the annual rate of remuneration in respect of which would be or exceed that amount if they were full time posts in respect of which remuneration were paid at the same rate as for the part time post; and
(c) posts not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above the duties of which appear to the authority to fall within subsection (3) below,

as are not posts for the time being exempted under section 3 below,'.

No. 219, in page 3, line 49, leave out "paragraph" and insert "subsection".—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 4, line 35, leave out 'reports' and insert
', as respects all or most of the duties of his post, is required to report'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 111 and 112.

Mr. Gummer: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the definition of "non-statutory chief officer" and "deputy chief officer" in clause 2. We undertook in Committee to do that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 4, line 37, leave out `reports' and insert
', as respects all or most of the duties of his post, is required to report'.
No. 112, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'reports' and insert
', as respects all or most of the duties of his post, is required to report'.
No. 220, in page 5, line 16, leave out from 'may' and insert 'shall'.
No. 221, in page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Where—

(a) a local authority have specified or are proposing to specify any post under the authority in a list maintained under subsection (2) of section 2 above;
(b) the holder for the time being of the post applies to the person appointed under subsection (1) above for exemptions from political restriction;
(c) the post is a post falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection which has been certified by the authority to be a post the duties of which, in their opinion, do not fall within subsection (3) of that section; and
(d) the person to whom the application is made is satisfied that the duties of that post do not so fall,

that person shall direct that, for so long as the direction has effect in accordance with its terms, the post is not to be regarded as a politically restricted post and, accordingly, is not to be specified in or, as the case may be, is to be removed from that list.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 3

EXEMPTIONS FROM POLITICAL RESTRICTION

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 5, line 27, at end insert—
'(2A) References in this section to a "person" shall be taken to include references to a tribunal of such persons, appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (2B) below for the purposes of carrying out functions under this section.
(2B) Any tribunal appointed under subsection (2A) above shall comprise a Chairperson, who shall be a person with experience of local government appointed after consultation with the local authority associations, and one representative each of local authorities as employers and of trades unions with members employed in local government grades to which political restriction may apply, or such other representation as the appellant may choose.
(2C) Any decision by a tribunal appointed under this section shall be by majority vote.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 152, in page 5, line 42, at end insert—
'(3A) Irrespective of any appointment or appointments made in accordance with subsection (3)(a) above, the Secretary of State shall appoint a different person for Scotland than any person appointed for England and for Wales.'.

Mr. O'Brien: What we are suggesting is that, instead of reference to an arbitrator, there should be a tribunal. That


would be much fairer. It would be in keeping with what is happening in and around local government. It would be a mirror of what is happening in industry, where, instead of having the one person to act as an arbitrator, there is a tribunal. Therefore, we consider that amendments Nos. 137 and 152 are important.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: This debate is about the system whereby individuals can appeal for exemption from political restrictions. The Government believe that one person only should be appointed to consider applications for exemption. The amendments, by contrast, allow for a proper system of appeal regarding exemption or political restrictions. If it is right that individuals should be able fully and fairly to participate in the democratic political process, it is surely just, correct and essential that a proper system of appeal be instituted. Individuals affected by the legislation must be protected by an appeal system that is, and is seen to be, fair. Unamended, the Government proposal does not ensure that. I therefore support the amendment.
Amendment No. 137 advocates a tribunal system. It also ensures that local government expertise will be available to the tribunal, which is important. There is a mass of expertise available within the Government and it should be used to protect the rights of individuals when those individuals feel that their rights as citizens are under threat.
In the Bill, there are none of those checks and balances which are normally associated with a democracy or any proper appeal system involving any public body. The amendment seeks to give confidence to anyone involved in appealing against a decision and will be seen as such. It will give greater confidence in a system which everyone in local government will rightly treat with caution. The Government's attitude to and record in local government forces caution on every person involved with the local government system. They have good reason to be wary about what the Government are doing by attempting to shackle and hamper the work of democratically elected individuals. People would approach the new system with caution and the new system would allow them at least to have some confidence when they appeal against decisions.
Similarly, amendment No. 152 is essential properly to take into account the fundamental uniqueness of the Scottish local government system. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I believe that the Scottish local government system has not been adequately catered for throughout the passage of the Bill. Certainly amendment No. 152 would begin the process of taking into account the uniqueness and the differences built into our national system of local government and law. It is not good enough for the Government to take a uniform system suited to Wales and England and apply it without thought or alteration to the very different circumstances of Scottish local government.
8.45 pm
I point out to the Minister the comments of COSLA. It rightly points out that structurally the Scottish system of local government varies widely from the system in England and Wales. Not only is the functional allocation different, but Scottish local government is unique in terms of its system—for example, for islands government. I know of

no equivalent in England. There is also a diversity of large and small units of government. There is a massive diversity between one local authority containing half the Scottish population and other small local authorities. A vast range of local authorities with different needs must be taken into account by the Bill. The imbalances far exceed anything to be found in England as, in fact, do the geographical differences between the two nations of Scotland and England.
Local government in Scotland is rightly the responsibility not of the Department of the Environment, but of the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hence, regulations, orders and circulars relating to the Scottish aspect and considerations emanating from United Kingdom-wide legislation are produced by the Scottish Office in recognition of that line of responsibility. The amendment seeks to extend that reality in a way that is useful in protecting Scottish local government.
I therefore support the amendments that emanate from the vast and practical experience of COSLA and take proper account of Scotland's individual and unique local government system. I believe that the Government are being short-sighted in their approach and that they will be making an unnecessary and fundamental mistake if they do not accept the amendment. As the Scottish Minister is here to speak for himself, I hope that he will take on board the need to take into account the distinctiveness of the Scottish system and will produce amendments that will allow people to have confidence in the new system as and when it is put into operation should the Bill go through unamended.

Mr. McAllion: I support amendments Nos. 137 and 152. Amendment No. 137 has a much better formulation for adjudication than the Bill. As it stands clause 3 would provide for a single adjudicator to be imposed upon the local authority from the outside by the Secretary of State. I assume that to be the Secretary of State for Scotland, although I am not clear and it might be that the Secretary of State for the Environment would impose that adjudicator on Scottish local authorities.
I believe that the idea of an adjudicating panel which has the confidence of the local authorities and, presumably, the confidence of the Secretary of State, as he would appoint the chairperson, is much better than imposing someone from outside on local authorities. It has the advantage of being much more democratic and of being based on the co-operation of both the local authorities and the employees who work inside the local authorities.
If General Jaruzelski was imposing his will on Solidarity—controlling local authorities—in the same way that the Minister for Local Government is imposing his will on our Labour-controlled local authorities, which side would the Minister be on? If General Jaruzelski had said to Solidarity that he intended his own appointee to impose his will upon Solidarity, with no consultation with Solidarity and with no consultation with the workers, I am sure that the Minister would be singing a different tune. If the Minister chose to stand up and say that, unlike General Jaruzelski, he is elected, that is not correct. In terms of Scottish local government, the Government have no democratic mandate to impose such measures on Scottish local authorities.
Amendment No. 152 tries to provide for a separate Scottish adjudicator and tries to establish that principle in


the Bill. I know that its terms are not exactly the same as those set out in amendment No. 137 as amendment No. 152 says:
the Secretary of State shall appoint a different person for Scotland than any person appointed for England and Wales.'
Amendment No. 137 says that the adjudication would be undertaken by a panel of three. That is just a technical point—all we want is the Minister to agree to the principle. I would be happy if the Minister accepted the principle that the Scottish chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the representative of the local authorities would he picked by COSLA and the representatives of the workers picked by the appropriate trade unions.
In Committee, I tried to raise this matter when the Minister said:
It will be possible for one adjudicator to adjudicate in England and Wales, and another to adjudicate in Scotland, for one to do the whole lot, or perhaps for there to be three.
The Minister therefore said that almost anything was possible. I pressed the Minister about that and asked whether clause 3(3)(a) which says that the Secretary of State may:
appoint different persons under subsection (1) above for England and for Wales
in any way diminished
the right of the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint people for Scotland?
The Minister replied:
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. It is possible for the same person to be selected by the Secretary of State for Wales and, for instance, the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, we are not discussing that point.
That was a complete non-answer and irrelevant to my question. The Minister went on:
A reasonable way in which to proceed is for me to give the Committee an undertaking to bring forward an amendment on Report that will clarify more exactly the way in which the adjudication system will work".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1989; c. 200.]
Having studied the amendments that have been tabled tonight, I do not see any Government amendment that clarifies the way in which the adjudication system will work.
It is important for the Government to recognise that there is a separate Scottish dimension to this question which means that we must make separate provision for Scotland. It must be appropriate to Scotland and must not impose on Scotland, through the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Wales, some kind of adjudicating system.
The case is overwhelmingly in favour of a distinct approach for Scotland. The local government structure in Scotland, with its regional, district and island councils, is different from that of England and Wales. It would make little sense to someone who did not have experience of Scottish local government. When the Labour party wins the next general election, the Scottish Parliament, once established, will immediately institute a further reform of local government that will make local government in Scotland even more obscure for anyone who comes from outwith Scotland and does not understand the Scottish system.
The allocation of functions between district, regional and island councils is different from the allocation of functions in England and Wales. In Scotland we have unique circumstances. Strathclyde council employs a number of staff who deal with the press and handle the

public relations of that council. Many of those employees have regular contacts with journalists and several of those who deal with the media earn more than £13,500. I assume that there would be no controversy about whether those people would be placed in the "politically restrictive posts" category. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us if that is so. Six other members of the same council department do not have regular contact with the media, but with the public. Two of those people earn more than £13,500 and four do not. How will those four be affected by the Bill? If we do not have a Scottish adjudicator, how will he make sense of the practice of Strathclyde regional council and how will he be able to distinguish between the different categories of officials and decide whether the restrictions should be applied to them?
It does not make sense for the adjudicator not to understand the Scottish system as he runs the risk of making catastrophic errors when deciding to restrict any of the posts. Two of the officers of Strathclyde who do not deal with journalists, but who deal with the public, would have a right of appeal because they earn more than £13,500, but the other four earn less, even though they are doing the same job. The whole thing is a mess, but things would improve if there were a provision for a separate panel of Scottish adjudicators in line with amendment No. 137.
The House already recognises that local government in Scotland is accountable not to the Department of the Environment but to the Scottish Office. That is why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present tonight. If the Government recognise the separateness of Scotland to that extent, they should go further and recognise that Scotland should have a separate adjudication system.
We are not talking about something that will have a marginal effect. Edinburgh district council has calculated that more than 500 officers are likely to be affected by the Bill. Those officers range from administrators to solicitors, the secretariat, the technical service officers, the service engineers, maintenance and repair personnel and even its theatre manager. What happens when that manager decides to stage "Harmony Row", a production by the Scottish Wildcat Theatre company, which is a play against the poll tax? Would the theatre manager be allowed to put on that play which attacks the poll tax, or would he be accused of indulging in political activity under the Bill? Such are the anomalies thrown up by this ridiculous Bill.
The only way in which to make the Bill better is to ensure that at least some kind of Scottish sanity is written into it by ensuring that there is a separate system of Scottish adjudication. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Wallace: I support amendments Nos. 137 and 152. Amendment No. 137 calls for a panel of adjudicators and that is justified, otherwise an enormous burden would be placed on one individual. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has already said that more than 500 employees of Edinburgh district council are likely to be affected by the Bill. For a start, therefore, that means that potentially 500 appeals could be lodged.
In our previous debate, the Minister for Local Government was most reasonable and said that the adjudicator had already predetermined a vast number of cases, not least those affecting manual workers. Many of us would have liked to have seen that predetermination


embodied in the Bill. Even if we accept the Minister's word, many people will still wish to take their appeal to the adjudicator. Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can tell us what the adjudicator's view will be of the teaching profession. A number of teachers are councillors in an authority by which they are not employed. I would welcome some reassurance about that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they are specifically not included.

9 pm

Mr. Wallace: I am very grateful for that reassurance and much relieved by it—[Interruption.] I do not accept that they are all Tories; a good number of our councillors are teachers.
Nevertheless, this would be a tremendous burden to put upon one person. I was going to say that the Government were here creating another quango but that implies an organisation and with one person it would probably be a quan-guy. One wonders how much this person will be paid for carrying out this function, which I foresee as being, in the initial stages at least, a full-time job.
Let us think in simple terms for one moment of what this person is being invited to do. The appointee of the Government is being asked to determine whether individuals may indulge in political activity, some of which, and probably much of which, is in an interest which could well be opposed to the interest of the Government. The appointee of the Secretary of State will be asked to make that fundamental decision, which affects the rights of an individual citizen to participate in the political process. It would have been unthinkable a few years ago to put that into the hands of a Government appointee, but that is what the Government are asking us to do in this Bill.
I therefore support the idea that if this is to be done at all it should be done by an appeals body and not left in the hands of one person. It should be done by a tribunal which reflects the interests of employers, employees and the Secretary of State. Apart from anything else, that would help to share the load. When one is debating fundamental political liberties, there is no reason why a person should be expected to wait a considerable length of time for an appeal to be heard, as would be almost inevitable if the duty were imposed on one individual.
I shall be very brief with regard to amendment No. 152 which asks for a specific person to be appointed for Scotland. It has already been said that Scottish local government is an entirely separate structure. I can see no good reason why we should tag along with what the English and the Welsh are doing. We need someone who understands fully the ins and outs of Scottish local government. For the Government to refuse a quite reasonable amendment such as this would be obduracy at its worst.
I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who always aims to please, will succeed in doing so in this case.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A number of interesting points have been raised and I will start with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who spoke with

enthusiasm about appointing a tribunal. It has always been the Secretary of State's intention that the adjudicator should be a person with suitable experience. We shall most certainly keep an open mind on that matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) explained in Committee, we believe that the issues are fairly clear cut. We believe that it is unnecessary to establish a tribunal. I do not see why Opposition Members feel that a tribunal comprising representatives of interested groups and trade unions would serve the necessary purpose. It should be the role of an independent adjudicator alone to consider an application for exemption against a clear statutory framework, but he would be in a quasi-judicial role.

Mr. O'Brien: If the Minister accepts that it is right for the Civil Service to have an appeals tribunal—a tripartite system—why does he insist that local government should not have the same facilities? That is simply the hypocrisy that exists on the Government Benches.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Widdicombe did not make the recommendation which the hon. Member is suggesting and I believe that the circumstances are different. For example, it is not possible for civil servants to stand for Parliament, but it is certainly possible for local authority officials below a certain level to do precisely that.
One of the advantages of having an independent person as compared to a panel is that he would be truly independent and not a representative of interest groups. I do not think it appropriate that trade union representatives should sit in judgment on this question. We do not see this in any sense as a bargaining matter; it is the application of a clear-cut set of criteria determined by Parliament as set out in clause 2(3) of the Bill. The adjudicator will, of course, be expected to act independently and impartially.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke at considerable length making the case for an adjudicator for Scotland. Indeed, the hon. Member spoke about this in Committee. I accept his argument. I believe that it is right, proper and appropriate that there should be a separate adjudicator for Scotland. He or she will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the provisions of clause 3 to serve as the independent exemptions adjudicator for Scotland. So I hope that that amendment will be withdrawn.
I want to deal particularly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who asked a question which he raised a year ago in the Committee which considered the Local Government Bill, about the words "Secretary of State for Scotland". He asked whether, when the Secretary of State is referred to, these words are interchangeable. I quite understand why the provisions in subsection (3)(a) of clause 3 may have led to the supposition that a similar provision may be necessary for Scotland, but an express provision for Scotland not only is unnecessary but would be positively undesirable.
Subsection (3)(a) is intended to avoid any doubt about the power of the Secretary of State for Wales to make a separate appointment in Wales under subsection (1). No such doubt arises in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter, but it might well arise in relation to existing legislation if the amendment were to be made.
It is a well understood convention that in a Great Britain Act dealing with matters such as local government where the Secretary of State has full territorial responsibility, powers conferred on the Secretary of State for Scotland may be exercised separately and, if necessary, differently by him within Scotland. Therefore, it is unnecessary to add an express reference to Scotland and to do so might cast doubt on the many other legislative provisions that are now read in accordance with the convention.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister answer my question about how much such a person will be paid? Secondly, does he accept that it is difficult for a person to be seen to be independent if he is appointed by the Secretary of State? Can he give a guarantee that the person will be barred from the same political activities from which the legislation aims to disbar council employees?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly give the guarantee for which the hon. Gentleman asks in his last question. The remuneration still has to be worked out.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister also give us the assurance that whoever is appointed to the position will not be a defeated Conservative candidate at a previous general election?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can, without any question, expect him to be the best person for the job.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

DESIGNATION AND REPORTS OF MONITORING OFFICER

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 40, at end, insert—
`(c) to secure that the officer is a person who appears to have the requisite knowledge and experience to discharge the functions of the monitoring officer. Either the monitoring officer or deputy monitoring officer should be a barrister, advocate or solicitor called or admitted in any part of the United Kingdom or a member of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators.'.
The amendment is inspired by the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators and it seeks to define the qualifications required by the monitoring officer.
The monitoring officer will be responsible for drawing the attention of the authority to any decision or omission which contravenes any rules of law or conventions binding the authority which would result in maladministration. Therefore, the monitoring officer will need a working knowledge of local government legislation and any local conventions that are binding. He will also need to know of any actions which result in maladministration or injustice by the authority.
The monitoring officer will also be required to monitor
any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by any committee, sub-committee or officers".
Therefore, a knowledge of local authority committee structures and procedures would be a distinct advantage.
The amendment ensures that the monitoring officer or his deputy is either a lawyer or a member of the institute to which I have referred, and it would require the authority to appoint an officer who would have the knowledge and experience to do the duties in a professional and thorough

manner. It would also ensure that the public would be assured that councillors receive and act upon sound professional advice.

Mr. Gummer: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend but I hope that he will accept that, on balance, it is better not to increase the number of requirements wherever that is not utterly necessary. It is up to the local authority to decide who should be the monitoring officer. I am not entirely convinced that it is right to make it a kind of closed shop of particular people with particular qualifications. In general, it is likely that monitoring officers will be in possession of one or other of those qualifications, but that will not always be so and in some local authorities the person who is the obvious choice will not fall into those categories. It is much better that the local authority should have that decision in its own hands.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the care with which I have sought to listen to and discuss with the bodies representing those various groups shows that I have a high view of the responsibilities and personal needs of those senior officers. However, in the end, it is better to leave this to the decision of the local authority. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep a close eye on what happens, and if there is a future need to do something of the kind that he suggests, no doubt we can return to the matter.

Sir George Young: I am overwhelmed by the clarity and logic of my hon. Friend's reply, and I do not wish to press the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 275, in page 7, line 42, leave out from 'obligations)' to end of line 44, and insert
'or otherwise, to ensure that no step is taken for giving effect to any proposal or decision to which such a report relates at any time while the implementation of the proposal or decision is suspended in consequence of the report'.
No. 276, in page 7, line 48, at end insert—
'(5A) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) above the implementation of a proposal or decision to which a report under this section relates shall be suspended in consequence of the report until the end of the first business day after the day in which consideration of that report under paragraph (a) of that subsection is concluded.'.
No. 277, in page 8, line 6, at end insert—
'"business day", in relation to a relevant authority, means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good. Friday or any day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of Great Britain where the area of the authority is situated;'.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 232, in page 8, line 18, leave out 'regional, islands or district council' and insert 'local authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 233, 234, 237, 238, 235 and 236.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments all serve to correct drafting errors or inconsistencies.

Mr. John Maxton: In nearly all Scottish local government legislation of which I am aware, the terminology region, island and district authority is fairly standard, and yet the Minister appears to be changing his mind and introducing in the Bill something rather different. Is the Minister engaged in some wily plot to introduce local government reform at a later stage?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have no hidden agendas in that respect. The expression "local authorities" is defined for Scotland in clause 18(2) as meaning
a regional, islands or district council or a joint board or joint committee within the meaning of section 235(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Any joint committee that is a corporate body falls within the meaning of "joint board". As we do not want the definition to embrace unincorporated joint committees, we require to delete the words "or joint committee". I will ensure that the relevant provisions will apply as intended to regional, islands or district councils and to corporate joint bodies, but not to unincorporated joint committees. The reasoning for that is that an unincorporated joint committee is not primarily responsible for the discharge of functions. Amendment No. 237 also concerns a drafting error, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to pursue that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 8, leave out line 39 and insert—
`(c) be a person who qualifies by virtue of section 113(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (existing office holders) as a person who may be given responsibility for the financial affairs of an authority mentioned in section 111(2)(a) to (k) of that Act; or
(d) fulfil two or more of those conditions.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to debate Government amendment No. 168.

Mr. Gummer: These minor amendments ensure that local authority chief finance officers without formal qualifications are not barred from becoming chief finance officers of the City of London or from a section 73 successor body.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister will correct me if I misunderstood him, but he appeared to be saying that the City of London can take people on who clearly do not have the qualifications for the job. Is that what he was saying? The Minister implied that the City of London could take on unqualified people who would have been required to have certain qualifications were they employed elsewhere.

Mr. Gummer: It is simply that certain chief finance officers are permitted under section 113 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to hold the post of local authority chief finance officer because at the time that section 113 came into force they were already holding such a post. The amendment ensures that such chief finance officers are not barred in the future from holding the post of chief finance officer of the Common Council of the City of London or any new successor body under section 73 of the Local Government Act 1985. The amendment ensures that certain rights accorded under a previous Act will not be excluded.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot address the House again.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 168, in page 9 leave out line 4 and insert—
`(c) be a person who qualifies by virtue of section 113(2)(b) of the local Government Finance Act 1988 (existing office holders) as a person who may be given responsibility for the financial affairs of an authority mentioned in section 111(2)(a) to (k) of that Act; or
(d) fulfil two or more of those conditions.'.—[Mr. Gummer].

Clause 7

ALL STAFF TO BE APPOINTED ON MERIT

Amendments made: No. 233, in page 9, line 43 leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 45.
No. 234, in page 10, line 2 leave out from 'authority' to `whether' in line 3 and insert 'or parish or community council'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 10, line 7 at end insert—
'(aa) section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and Section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (Provision of Sheltered Employment by Local Authorities)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 141, in page 10, line 18 after 'qualification'. insert—
`(ee) section 11 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (Training and Occupation of the Mentally Handicapped)'.
No. 142, in line 21 at end insert—
'(2A) Nothing in this section shall affect the selection of any person for a place on a sheltered placement scheme, nor the appointment of any person made in accordance with a scheme maintained by an authority for the purpose of promoting the employment of persons with a mental or physical disability.'

Mr. Murphy: This group of amendments deal with the employment of people with a mental handicap. Their purpose is to clarify the fact that nothing in clause 7, which deals with appointments on merit, will cut across sheltered placement schemes or positive employment policies which are geared to the disabled and to those with a mental handicap or an impairment.
The requirement in the clause to appoint staff purely on merit threatens to make it unlawful for local authorities to adopt any policy of positive discrimination towards people who are disabled or mentally impaired. Such policies recognise that disabled people face difficulties in gaining employment, even when there are jobs available which they could do. Apart from conscious and unconscious prejudice, difficulties arise because the disabled person may not, in the past, have had access to the same educational and employment opportunities as a person without a disability, or because the disabled person may require some additional training to perform the job successfully.
A number of local authorities have adopted policies to help disabled people to overcome these sometimes serious problems and disadvantages. Legislation such as the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 recognises that


local authorities have a role to play in increasing employment opportunities for disabled people. Some authorities have a responsibility as social work or social service authorities. Finding employment often reduces the reliance on statutory welfare services and can be seen as a cost-effective way of assisting disabled people.
Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which is referred to in the amendment, states that facilities may be provided to enable handicapped or disabled people to gain employment. The 1958 Act allows local authorities to make arrangements for the provision of facilities for the same purpose.
Facilities provided under those powers involve the local authority in employing disabled people. For example, under the sheltered placement schemes, to which I have referred, a business agrees to provide work for a disabled person. It receives a proportion of the standard rate for the job, based on the output of the disabled person compared with the, so to speak, ordinary employee. The balance is met by the sponsor, which is often a local authority.
The crucial point is that the sponsor is the legal employer of the disabled person. If clause 7 is to have the effect intended by the Government, it must be taken to mean that jobs are to be given to those best able to do them. Clearly, that is inconsistent with such schemes whose purpose is to provide employment for people who cannot perform jobs as well as others. Since the Government support sheltered employment and, I am sure, positive discrimination towards disabled people employed by local authorities, it would seem that such a failure is an oversight. I hope that when he replies the Minister will recognise it as such.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is an important point which has caused concern for those involved. I cannot believe that the Minister intended the clause to have the effect described by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). Therefore, I hope that he will either accept the amendments or clarify in specific terms why people with disabilities will not be affected in the way suggested. To a layman at least, it appears that the clause would have that effect. I do not know what a lawyer would make of it. I do not think that there will be any party political controversy on this point, but it is causing concern and I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the House that the clause will not affect disabled people in the way that has just been outlined.

Mr. McAllion: Amendment No. 141 deals with section 11 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which involves the training and occupation of the mentally handicapped. It places a duty on local authorities to provide or secure the provision of suitable training in an occupation for the mentally handicapped.
In the past, we have tended to concentrate on training for disabled people, but there is a growing recognition that genuine employment is the key to great advances for those suffering from mental handicap. A number of innovative schemes, all of which will be prejudiced unless the amendment is accepted, are being implemented by local authorities. It would then be legally impossible to employ the mentally handicapped if employment by merit had to be applied strictly and legally. I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment sympathetically.

Mr. Gummer: First, let me assure the House that it is not the Government's understanding that the provisions

will have the effect that certain people fear. Clause 7(2) makes it clear that the general provision will have effect subject to certain existing statutory provisions designed to protect particular groups, many of which have been mentioned. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the Scottish provisions.
I have no doubt that people need have no worries. If anyone has any further anxieties, however, I shall be happy to consider them, and if there is any question that the clause will do other than what we expect it to do I shall be glad to see whether an amendment is necessary. If hon. Members wish to withdraw their amendments, certain aspects of which will cause difficulties, I shall be happy to produce an amendment to deal with any problems, although I do not expect any.

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for those assurances, on the basis of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 113, in page 10, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Gummer]

Clause 9

ASSISTANTS FOR POLITICAL GROUPS

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 12, line 16, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 314, in page 12, line 16, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
No. 203, in page 13, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert `the membership of that group numbers at least five'.
No. 315, in page 13, leave out lines 14 to 40 and insert `the number of other groups (if any) which are larger than the group does not exceed five.'
No. 150, in page 13, line 17, leave out 'two' and insert `three'.
No. 151, in page 13, line 19, leave out 'two' and insert `three'.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not detain the House for long, because we debated these issues in Committee.
The Bill designates three political assistants, but it was felt that in a number of circumstances, particularly appertaining to Scotland but also in other parts of the. United Kingdom, genuine flexibility would be needed to take account of the greater plurality of representation on the local authority.
I do not think that this is a matter of tremendous ideological difference. We can box with each other about whether it would be entertaining to leave particular political parties without the facility of political assistance—if they choose to take it—but that does not seem awfully clever to us. If we can provide a facility which, within reason, meets the needs of different political parties with reasonable representation on local authorities, we should provide it.
Political support in terms of secretarial, administrative and research facilities obviously takes different forms in different local authorities, and if we are too restrictive we shall be in danger of finding that people consider different ways of presenting and obtaining support for groups.
In the spirit in which we are debating tonight, I am sure that the Minister will say, as he would have in Committee, that the amendment is very reasonable.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 314 and 315.
The so-called "abuse" of the appointment of paid assistants for political groups has never to my knowledge been a particular problem in Scottish local government. The Bill, however, seeks to impose rules and limitations on Scottish local councillors, and their ability to appoint assistants as and when they wish and to meet their specific needs.
My concern is that the assumptions behind clause 9 are based purely on the English model of local government and local politics, and do not fit easily or usefully with the reality of Scottish local government. There are obvious differences of size and scale between Scotland and England, as well as differences in traditions and customs. There are also differences in local government units and political affiliations, which should be taken into account in the legislation if it is to do more good than harm.
Not only are full-time paid political advisers unheard of, but they would be an absurdity in many of the smaller and more rural Scottish authorities. The Bill sets out to provide Scotland with a supposed solution to problems which it does not have, but which exist in specific parts of England.
The wording of the Bill relates only to the English three-party system. The Scottish reality can be very different. Scottish local government has consisted of at least a four-party system for some time. In certain areas, it is even more diverse than that. Therefore, my amendment seeks to provide a more realistic framework for Scottish local government and to avoid the future unnecessary problems that, if unchanged, the Bill would pose for Scotland. I am attempting not to destroy this part of the Bill but to make it more closely fit the pattern of Scottish local government.
Amendment No. 315 is a simplification. That, for starters, can never be a bad thing for a Government who are introducing an ever-growing flood of legislation. Therefore, I commend my amendment, which simplifies one portion of an extremely long Bill. It takes into account the diversity of Scotland's political life. The Bill is designed to cater exclusively for political life in Wales and England. The Government's underlying assumption is that there is a two-party system in every local authority, with perhaps an occasional nod in the direction of a possible third party. The assumption should be different in Scotland because the political reality there is different. Scotland has a three-party or a four-party system and it has had it for some time.
I am also left with the feeling that no account whatsoever has been taken of independent councillors or independent-controlled councils. Although the inexorable trend of party politics has squeezed independent councillors out of the major urban and more populous areas, independent councillors and independent-controlled councils still exist in Scotland. Obviously it is up to the electorate to decide how long that should continue, but the reality is that in addition to a three-party or a four-party system in Scottish local government, there is still a significant number of independent councillors whose needs ought to be taken into account in the interests of fairness, if nothing else.
My concern is that the assumptions about local government in England and Wales are being applied without thought or alteration to the markedly different

Scottish local government scene. Hence, the amendment calls for the application of different arithmetic when considering Scotland.
The amendments provide for flexibility compared with the rigidity of the provisions in the Bill. They allow for future political changes as well as for the present reality. I am sure that the Minister has noted that all the Opposition parties agree that the Government's proposal is inadequate and that they have tabled amendments which seek to increase the numbers involved. The details may vary sightly, but the need for alteration is accepted as a common philosophy. That leaves the Government in a very isolated position.
I should like the Minister to think again. The amendments provide one method by which he can do so. They would allow for the diversity of the political scene in Scottish local government to be recognised.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has pointed out, the Opposition parties have all tabled amendments along the same lines.
The purpose of amendment No. 203 is twofold—equity and simplicity. The hon. Member for Angus, East also pointed out that the Government's rules and criteria lead to unnecessary complication. The length and the confused nature of the debate on this part of the Bill in Committee demonstrated that the Government's proposals are tortuous in the extreme and will cause havoc in council chambers up and down the land as arguments rage between third parties of equal size, large fourth parties and allegedly independent groups that may have difficulty in obtaining assistance and that may also divide into groups with very different views on the council.
In Committee the Minister did not appear to understand the problems that he and his colleagues seemed to be intent on causing for no particular good reason. I foresee real difficulties in some local authorities, particularly in Scotland, Wales and in mainly rural parts of England, as well as in Cornwall, where sizeable numbers of independents continue to get elected and play a prominent role on councils. Most importantly, our amendment brings equity between groups of different size throughout the country. Why should members of a council in a group of five on one authority have fewer rights of access to facilities to serve their constituents than a person in a similar position in a similarly sized neighbouring authority simply because the numbers of their opponents happen to divide differently or because the council has different numbers of representatives and therefore the entitlements differ according to the particular circumstances?
Under the Government's plans, a council divided equally between four political parties would be entitled to three assistants. That is the absurdity of the Government's proposals. I understand that they are trying to limit the potential costs involved, but most local authorities do not provide such assistance because local people probably would not support it, no matter which party proposed it. That is because the local electorate has a considerable say over whether such a system would go ahead and could decide whether that cost should be involved.
9.30 pm
The problem is that under the Government's scheme the freedom to make a decision locally, according to local circumstances, is not allowed. The matter may be raised


again in the other place if the Government do not accept at least one of the amendments. I rather suspect that, given the nature of the party divisions in the other place, and the fact that there are Cross Benchers, they may have a greater understanding than the Government have of the nature of a debating chamber in which many groups of differing but significant size are represented, have a real involvement, and in many cases have a determining vote on the decisions that are taken. That may not happen in this House, but it happens in the other place and in council chambers across the country.
Our amendment offers the Government a simple, sensible way out which might not provide civil servants with so much fun and games when complications arise but would certainly lead to a simple, efficient and fair system within local authorities across the country.

Mr. McAllion: I shall be brief in speaking in support of amendments Nos. 149, 150 and 151.
I do not know the basis on which the Government decided to allow three political assistants for each of the three main parties in every council, but I assume that it had something to do with the result of the last general election when the votes split largely between the Tories, the Labour party and the alliance. The situation has changed since the last general election with the division of the alliance, the SDP splitting away and the rest of the alliance forming the Social and Liberal Democrats. Since then, there has also been the emergence of the Green party as a possible alternative to the Democrats and the SDP as the third main party. The situation is changing, and I know it is difficult for the Government to legislate on something which is constantly on the move.
The amendments emphasise that clause 9 simply does not relate to Scottish local government, and that should be recognised. A large number of district authorities and regional authorities are comprised of four or more representative groups. If the number of political assistants is restricted to three, the ability of almost half Scotland's local authorities to allocate political assistance to all representative groups when those groups fulfil the criteria set out in clause 9(6) will be severely restricted.
COSLA has made available to me a breakdown of more than 63 councils in Scotland. It shows that three of those councils are single party councils, 11 are two-party councils, 19 are three-party councils, 23 are four-party councils and seven are five-party councils. Therefore, in Scotland it is not fair to restrict the number of assistants to only three parties. The Government must recognise that there are four major parties competing for the support of the people in Scotland and that councils should be allowed to allocate political assistants to all main representative groups.
The independent councillors have been mentioned. I do not support the idea that they should be allowed political assistance as independent groups on councils do not necessarily share the same political perspective, and it would be very difficult for them to agree on a political assistant to represent them all as representatives from the Left and the Right stand under the same title of independent.
The situation is becoming ever more complex. In the Glasgow, Central by-election, there are no fewer than nine different political parties competing for the vote. In a recent opinion poll, the Communist party, which is not standing, did much better than some of the parties that are

standing in Glasgow, Central. We cannot allow for every party that suddenly emerges on the political scene, but we must take on board the fact that there are major parties which command a large number of votes and which deserve to be eligible for being given political assistance under the Bill.
If the Conservative party is not careful, the Green party could overtake it as the fourth party, as the latest opinion polls show. If the Government do not accept the amendment, they may find that they are denying to Conservative groups in Scotland the right to appoint political assistants. I hope that the Government will realise that Scotland is different and will legislate for political assistants for the four major parties in that country.

Mr. Gummer: Some of the discussion has gone along lines that show a division between the Government and the Opposition in the sense that it has been suggested that the idea of having a maximum of three special assistants is to mirror the party structure on particular councils. That is not so. The House will be aware that originally the Widdicombe committee supported the scheme that we should have a number of such posts up to five. When the Government produced their White Paper, they proposed that we should have none at all. I listened with care to the advice given to me from hon. Members of various parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), for example, raised the question and put some pertinent points on it. I had representations from the Labour party as well.
As a result of listening to a range of views, I became convinced marginally not with enormous enthusiasm—that it was reasonable to allow some special assistants rather along the lines of those provided for Ministers under the present system and under the previous Government. We moved away from the proposal in the White Paper.
The idea of three was a compromise in a real sense. It seemed to us that if we were going to introduce such a system, to have one for the party in power, so to speak, in a local authority and one for the opposition party was, perhaps, a little niggardly, especially where one had a mix that would make it more sensible to have three. We therefore proposed three.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way when I have finished the point.
I see no reason why we cannot argue for a long time about how many there should be. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made the point that there were many parties and many people standing under various groups. He would have denied independents the right to decide that they might like to be an independent group. Under the regulations, the system will be different from the one the hon. Gentleman suggested. If the independents, grouped together, formed the third largest party in the sense that I have described, with a significant number of members, they would be able, if they wanted and irrespective of whether I thought it was a good idea, to form such a group, and in a council that gave up to three special advisers they would be able to gain one adviser. It would be up to them.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) felt strongly about the situation in Scotland. He might take


into account the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who made the same application to the situation in England and Wales. This is not a division between the various parts of the United Kingdom. Our proposal is based on the principle that the Government have been persuaded by the arguments of hon. Members of various parties to change their original position. Generally, it has been accepted as a welcome compromise, except by one or two hon. Members, who have revealed rather different views.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment about Scotland but should first like to say something which is not as helpful to the hon. Member for Truro. I was fascinated—I shall check it in Hansard—by his revelations about the unhappy relationships among the small parties of his tendency on various local councils. It was a revelation to those hon. Members who were present to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not feel that these provisions will do anything other than lead, in what I believe were his words, to "very unhappy, very difficult circumstances". I am sorry that that is his relationship with his colleagues. It is a pity—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I have promised to give way to the hon. Member for Angus, East.
There is a balance to be drawn about how much of the cost of political organisations it is reasonable to ask the public to bear. Originally the Government felt that they should bear no cost, but I have been convinced that some of the cost should, indeed, be borne. We should retain what seems the reasonable figure of three special advisers. I cannot believe that it is impossible to run a small party group without such a special adviser. It seems an odd version of the current situation to suggest that that cannot he done without some support when in most councils in most parts of the country no support is given and, historically, no support has ever been given.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister has called his measure a "reasonable compromise" but I put it to him again that it is not reasonable in Scotland. I should like him to address the straightforward point that limiting the number of political assistants to three severely restricts the ability of almost half Scotland's local authorities to allocate political assistance to all representative groups when those groups fulfil the other criteria as defined in clause 9(6). It is entirely wrong for the Minister to say that he has found a reasonable compromise because his provisions will affect almost half Scotland's local authorities. That cannot be right.

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the matter is of that order. It is perfectly reasonable to say that on any local authority the number of people involved in that activity should be restricted to three. Most local authorities have none—that is the nature of the present position—and very many hon. Members think that it is giving far too much to have any at all. I have sought a compromise and this is the compromise that I propose. Any alternative would lead many people who have been prepared to go along with this

compromise to say, "If you are going to provide all sorts of extra people for all sorts of groups, frankly we prefer to have none at all". It is a reasonable compromise and one to which I intend to stick.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 12, line 37 leave out subsection (4).
I might be even briefer now than on the last occasion on the ground that this is such a reasonable amendment that it would take a dedicated and extremely unreasonable man or woman to turn it down. The reasonableness of it is that, even allowing for the £13,500 level for debarring people from political activity, if someone is not likely to be felt by those with whom and on behalf of whom they are working to be unduly influenced by their political activities outside, in other words, if they are not likely to be considered to be impartial or lacking independence, the argument about forbidding them from undertaking outside political work and debarring them from outside political activities reaches the depth of absurdity.
I should like the Minister to reconsider this issue, because, while it cannot be considered earth-shattering by anybody's standards, the Government's provisions really do take the biscuit.

Mr. Gummer: Obviously, this matter could reasonably be argued by rational people. I do not believe that those who take a different view from myself are in some way peculiar or extreme. I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is possible to have a different view.
We have taken this view because Widdicombe suggested that such posts should be graded as senior officers. We think that a point within the senior officer range, which is also the bottom of the principal officer range—that is, £13,500—is about right as the maximum.
9.45 pm
We see these posts in a different light from that which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) put forward, and that is why we refer to a "special assistant" rather than a "political assistant." We see this as the kind of person who might, as part of a career pattern, seek at some later date to take a more active part in politics and wish to use this provision in those circumstances. We say that this would be a reasonable role for such a person to play and that this would be a reasonable sum for him or her to have.
I agree, however, that it can be a matter of disagreement between rational people. It is part of a compromise which I propose to the House. It is a compromise which arose because originally the Government intended to suggest that nobody should be available for these posts and that no such post should be designated. But I felt that it was better to propose what we have now proposed.
I accept that it would be just as rational and reasonable to propose a different mix. I am merely saying that this will commend itself even to those people, of whom there are many, who do not think we should have any of these people. I believe this to be about the right level. We shall keep it under scrutiny because it is meant to meet a particular level, and that is the level of principal officer.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

LIMIT ON PAID LEAVE FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY DUTIES

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 15, line 8, leave out
'it shall be unlawful for the authority to'
and insert 'the authority may'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:
No. 145 in line 10, after 'is' insert 'up to or'.
No. 146 in line 12, at end insert
'where any time off is taken in accordance with a scheme made by the authority, and having regard to any guidance which may be issued by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Blunkett: There was unanimity in Committee across a wide spectrum of political opinion that the Government needed to think again about what at first appeared to be their vindictive attitude towards the level of remuneration and availability of time off to enable people to undertake council duties.
We are here dealing with the question of time off. We suggest that 26 days should be a minimum—being only half a day a week—rather than being the maximum, which would exclude people from being able to negotiate and agree time off with their employers. This change would allow people to have greater flexibility.
This issue would not have arisen to the extent that it has if we had in prospect a reasonable system of remuneration for council duties. I am aware that discussions are going on to try to find a more satisfactory formula on that front. But we do not have that yet, and we face a situation, which was revealed in Committee, which could lead to senior elected members not being able to undertake basic duties unless they were designated the mayor, the lord mayor or chairman of council, in which case they could have the requisite time off if employed by a local authority. It was mentioned in Committee that we might reach the silly situation where leaders of councils might have to double up in one of those roles to enable them to do their job. None of us wants that to happen. I certainly would not have wanted that to occur when I led a council. Indeed, if it were to happen it would lead us into a model of north American or partly European politics which would be detrimental.
We must accept that the demand here for adequate time in which to do the job is not a threat. It is not a question of elected members beginning to manage authorities or interfering with the role of those whom they employ. It is simply giving them sufficient time in which to formulate and monitor the implementation of policy and to undertake the liaison that is now necessary, even within the restricted bounds of local government. They must be able to do that work in consultation with other agencies and with central Government.
I recall telling the Minister that he and his colleagues would be in an unhappy situation if they had to travel the country meeting elected members who could not get, and certainly could not afford to take, time off to come from the north, Scotland, Wales, the south-west and the midlands to London. The whole attitude appears to be predicated on the experience of people who can pop around the corner to see Ministers, to liaise with civil servants or to take part in local authority association work—which, as everyone agrees, is important. We want people to have time off for such work and also to be remunerated.
Although it is late and there is still a great deal of business to be discussed, I should be interested to hear the Minister's view of whether someone who is prepared to hand his allowances to his employer could he permitted additional time off. In other words, if someone gave up the notion of remuneration and instead passes it to his employer, would he be allowed additional time off to carry out his duties? As the Widdicombe report suggested—and, indeed, as was suggested as long ago as 1964 in the first Maude recommendations—certain senior councillors inevitably must have time off to carry out their functions. Officials in councils are also clear about that need because without political guidance and the ability to liaise with politicians they would be in some difficulty. Of course, it would be nice from one political point of view if active politicians were kept out of the arena of spending time on policy formulation and monitoring, but wearing another hat we would all accept that that would not be right.
It is worth reminding the House that the secretary and solicitor of the county of Kent, one of the largest authorities in Britain, said on leaving that authority that he felt that the politicisation of local government came from attitudes imposed by the centre, not from the activities of elected members seeking to do their duties more effectively.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister take into consideration the different circumstances in Scotland? I know that he believes that there is a whole series of gross abuses, with people being paid by one authority to act as full-time councillors in another. I ask him to consider, for example, the Highland region, which covers an area of just under 10,000 square miles. It is the largest region in Scotland with about 40 per cent. of Scotland's land mass.
Someone travelling from Durness, in the north-west of Sutherland, to Inverness, which is the centre of the Highland region, would have a four-hour journey each way. The Bill allows only four hours paid time off per week, so that person could not even attend one meeting at Inverness. The journey from Ardnamurchan peninsula in the Lochaber district to Inverness, which involves the use of ferries, takes about four and a half hours each way, so someone could not even get to the council meeting at Inverness in the time allowed. The journey from Skye to Inverness, which also involves a ferry, takes about three and a half hours each way.
People living in the rural areas of Scotland will be severely affected by the imposition of a maximum of 208 hours paid leave. I hope that the Minister will take that into account and try to be fair to councillors living in remote parts of Scotland. Unless he accepts the amendments he will be discriminating against them. I note that the Scottish Office Minister is on the Front Bench and I hope that he will support the amendments, which have been proposed by COSLA.

Mr. Gummer: The issue to decide is what is a reasonable amount of time off to allow an employee in local government to take part in council activities elsewhere. We have accepted the figure proposed by the Widdicombe committee. The 208 hours referred to in clause 10 equates with the 26-day limit that it proposed. It is about half a day a week. Of course, I know that there is a division in the House, not necessarily between the two sides, but between those of us who believe that local council activity is a part-time, unpaid activity for which certain allowances


and restricted expenses should be paid, and those who want it to become something quite different. We heard the frank words of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) telling us what he sees local government work to be.
That is a distinction between us and would lead me to take a different view when it comes to what appears a reasonable amount of time off to work on the local council to which one is elected. I believe that this is about the right level. It is difficult for us to fix it, because, obviously, we all have different ways of looking at it and different approaches. However, we can be guided by the committee that was set up to look into the matter and the committee made that recommendation. On that committee was a very distinguished Scottish representative of local government, a man of very considerable worth. That is the figure upon which the committee decided. I believe that that is a reasonable one on which to agree.
I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would agree that it is one of those issues that we will differ on because we start from a different view of what local authorities should do. I have a view of the great importance of local authorities, but I see their elected members as playing a rather different role from the hands-on role that the hon. Gentleman believes they should have. We have different views of the role and, perhaps because of that, we have different views on the nature of the remuneration and the like. Therefore, it is not surprising that we disagree about how many days off a year it is reasonable for a public authority to give specifically for that purpose.
I believe that we are best to keep to the individual figure of the Widdicombe committee rather than any figure that we might dream up for ourselves. I know that some people feel that this is a lot to be given in the circumstances of someone who is paid for out of the public purse, but I believe that more or less a reasonable line has been presented by the committee. I suggest to the House that it would be best to keep with this rather than any alternative.
The committee took into account—and the very nature of its composition would make it necessary for it to take into account—all the varied differences throughout the United Kingdom. I recognise that in some parts of the United Kingdom the distances travelled and the time taken are considerable. It is difficult in those circumstances to make a special arrangement, because it is also true in some individual parts of England and Wales as well as in Scotland. It is obviously much more difficult in my constituency for district councillors to travel than it would be if they sat, for example, on some authority in London. With 54 miles of coastline, people obviously have to travel great distances. However, I think, in general, that this is not an unreasonable figure, and we are here supporting the independent recommendation of Widdicombe.

Mr. Blunkett: Clearly, I shall not persuade the Minister tonight. I hope that in the discussions on remuneration he will be willing to be more flexible and reasonable, because otherwise we will end up with a local government service that rests entirely on the rich and the retired, which would not be satisfactory for anyone.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 222, in page 15, line 29, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr Gummer.]

Clause 11

CONFIDENTIALITY OF STAFF RECORDS

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 15, line 43, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 156, in page 16, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
`(3) The following information shall be given with respect to the employees of the relevant body:—

(a) where a relevant body employs staff at a salary of £30,000 or more, that body shall be required to disclose the number of staff paid within each salary band as calculated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 35(1) of Schedule 6 of the Companies Act 1985.
(b) the relevant body shall also be required to give information regarding the average number of persons employed by it in the financial year and the average number of persons employed within specified categories as determined by the Head of the Paid Service, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 56 of Schedule 4 of the Companies Act 1985.'.

Mr. Blunkett: In Committee we were presented with an amendment that was supposed just to tidy up the situation in terms of securing rights for people's privacy. When we examined it, it turned out to be a permissive power for individuals to find out the salary levels of those whom they may suspect of undertaking political activity on salaries above £13,500. We were very concerned about that. We suggested that, while the pay of those categories of employees should always be available to public scrutiny, it was wrong that individual members of a local authority staff should be subjected to his salary level being available to someone who wished to investigate him.
The Companies Bill now before the House offers us a different situation because the Government are determined that those employees earning more than £30,000 should be excluded from the provisions of that measure. Previously that information had to be available so that the public could see the gross number of people who were earning substantial salaries. Those salaries had to be declared. My colleagues who are considering that Bill are arguing not about the individuals, but that the existing powers should be kept.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee ), again considered.

Mr. Blunkett: Just for one awful second I thought that something had happened, but then I realised that we were not to be visited.
On 6 June, in the Committee considering the Companies Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs argued that it was wrong for people to be as intrusive as to publish the numbers of those earning more than £30,000. The Minister for Local Government should consider the contradiction that now exists in terms of what is permissible and enforceable for local authorities for public employees, as opposed to those employed in the private sector.
We are not asking for an exact mirror image, but we are asking that the principles should be the same. Although


the categories and numbers of employees should be available, the individuals should be protected from the danger of snoopers who, with the most well-meaning intentions, investigate the salaries of their neighbours or those who have irritated them in their locality. We do not believe that when the Government moved the original amendment it was their intention to create such a situation and we would like them to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Gummer: I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said. It was our attempts to restrict a little the material details that are brought forward that led to this discussion in the first place.
The fact that such salary information has been available in the past has meant that the public has been able to see that the activities of the local councils have been proper. As a result of such information being available for study, local councils have uncovered obviously unsuitable arrangements as the figures did not add up when seen by the public.
The problem is that, under clause 11, information about payments gross of any deductions made by an authority to each of its employees remains open to inspection. We have moved in the hon. Gentleman's direction as we did not believe it was right that an individual employee's deductions of one sort or another, which were taken away before the payment was made, should be seen by the public. There is no reason why that should be so.
We believe that it is necessary to keep the gross payments available for inspection. The clause fulfils an undertaking that we gave in April 1988, after consulting the local authority associations and other interested parties, to restore the legal position on public inspection rights to that which everyone had thought it was before a High Court ruling in April 1986. We tried to do what everyone had thought was true until then and which had all-party support. Everyone had accepted that such information was a necessary part of the protection of the public.
I do not think that there is an analogy with companies' accounts because provisions in the Companies Act 1988 relate to information to be shown in their published annual accounts, which authorities already show in a similar form in their published annual accounts. Clause 11 is about what should be made available in the far more detailed accounting records for the purposes of public inspection, for which in companies' audit regimes there is simply no provision. Clearly, no sensible analogy can be drawn in this way.
We believe that clause 11 offers a reasonable balance between safeguarding personal privacy and providing the level of information necessary for proper accountability. However, I have real sympathy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented his points. At the moment I am not convinced that we can change this arrangement without significant difficulty as regards protecting the public purse in local government spending. There are some examples, which it would perhaps be better not to go through in detail, of its having been of use in detecting fraud.
I will give an undertaking to look again to see whether there is any way in which we can achieve that public accountability without having to ask for so much information on individuals to be on public show. I have

great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this point. I do not like the circumstances which have made this necessary. At the moment I do not think that we can change it but if I can find a way I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Blunkett: With that helpful and constructive assurance and referring the Minister to what his colleague said in the Committee on the Companies Bill on 6 June, in column 177, so that there can be discussions behind the scenes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

VOTING RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES: ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall require a person to be treated as a non-voting member of a sub-committee of a relevant authority if—

(a) the constitution of the sub-committee is governed by an agreement made before the passing of this Act between that authority and one or more other relevant authorities; and
(b) the person concerned is a member of one of those other relevant authorities.'.

I tabled the amendment because I have been most anxious about the potential effect of clause 12. I believe that taking away voting rights in certain circumstances could amount to a gross unfairness that should be put right. I believe that agreements drawn up by relevant authorities setting up committees or sub-committees involving elected members of other relevant authorities being co-opted on to committees should be upheld under the terms of this Bill.
These agreements—and there are quite a lot of them, I believe—normally exist so that the present authority has available to it local knowledge of a specialised nature or because they refer to property administration following the transfer in the past of real estate between authorities for the convenience of everybody. I believe that the Bill should not encourage or permit such agreements, made in the past in all honour, to be broken and that this House should not, through this Bill, be a party to such possibilities.
I will give the House an example of what I mean. In 1938 a private owner of the bed of Lake Windermere, in my constituency—I think I am right in saying that that private owner was the uncle of our old friend Shirley Williams, who was a Member of the House for a long time —gave the bed of the lake to "the people of Windermere". After this generous gift it was administered by the new owners through the then Windermere urban district council. Then, of course, we came to local government reorganisation in the early 1970s, Windermere urban district council went out of being and the bed of the lake was given to the new authority, South Lakeland district council. That was a satisfactory arrangement.
The gift was conditional upon the lake bed being administered by a sub-committee of South Lakeland district council—the authority's leisure and tourism committee—set up with 24 members, 16 from South Lakeland district council, five from Windermere parish council and three from the Lakes parish council, with the chairman coming from the 16 district council delegates.
At that point of local government reorganisation, a formal, legalised and witnessed agreement was entered into by the three relevant authorities on 21 April 1975. Since then, all has worked satisfactorily. The agreement approved the transfer of ownership of the bed of Lake Windermere and there was a detailed constitution for the administering sub-committee. All the members of the committee have voting powers.
The trouble is that clause 12 could, in this case, enable the senior authority, South Lakeland district council, to remove the voting rights from those co-opted members of the parish council. Do not forget that we are talking about a gift to the people of Windermere, not to the much wider South Lakeland district council. There are many similar agreements and it would be wrong for such voting rights to be removed by the Bill.
I was most concerned about the situation until today. This morning I received a letter from South Lakeland district council enclosing a copy which was sent to my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, in which Mr. Parkinson, the deputy clerk of the council, informed the Department of the Environment that at a recent meeting the council resolved to make application for exemption under clause 12(4)(g) with regard to the sub-committee.
That means that the council has decided, at a late stage—I do not know whether that had anything to do with my amendment—to seek to allow the co-opted members from the parish council to maintain their voting rights, which is a statesmanlike and welcome move and I congratulate and applaud the council on that.
The problem that caused me to table the amendment has now been resolved, but there are wider problems. That is why I suggest in the amendment that in such circumstances a sub-committee, such as the one that I have described governed by an agreement made before the passing of the Act, should not involve the taking away of voting powers. I believe that that is fair.
I am bound to admit to the House that my main motivation has been settled due to the statesmanlike behaviour and attitude of my council at a late stage. But there could well be a number of similar agreements throughout Britain where, unreasonably and in violation of previous agreements which have been solemnly undertaken, voting rights could be removed which would be a gross unfairness. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replies he will be able to tell us that my amendment is acceptable to the Government.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Amendment No. 19 would enable councillors of one authority to continue to be co-opted as voting members of a sub-committee of another authority if that sub-committee was established under an agreement made before the passing of the Act.
The practice of one authority being represented on a committee or sub-committee of another is not a new one. One example of such an arrangement that is enshrined in statute is the national parks committees, for which we provided a specific exemption in the Bill. Where local authorities make such arrangements on a non-statutory basis, as in the case cited by my right hon. Friend, it is usually by establishing a joint committee. Elected

members from the constituent authorities of such committees would not be affected by the voting restrictions in the Bill.
10.15 pm
Where current arrangements provide for the co-option of members of one authority to a committee or sub-committee of another, normally it should not be difficult for the authorities concerned to alter those arrangements to provide for the relevant functions to be undertaken by a joint committee. Where for some special reason that course does not prove possible I will be prepared to consider granting a special exemption by way of regulations under clause 12(4)(h).
I do not think that there are a large number of cases similar to the special one my right hon. Friend cites, where the bed of Lake Windermere was granted to the citizens by a kind benefactor. As I said in my letter to my right hon. Friend, it is still open to South Lakeland district council to form a joint committee with the two parish councils. However, I accept that there may be special circumstances making that difficult, because of the unusual nature of the agreement under which the existing sub-committee was established and if no other acceptable solution can be found we shall be prepared to provide that special exemption in the regulations under clause 12(4)(g). It is under that provision that I heard tonight for the first time that the council proposes to make an arrangement to let itself through the net, as it were—and I confirm that I shall be happy to sanction that in the regulations when they are drafted, which effectively meets my right hon. Friend's point.
Clause 12 is drafted wide enough to meet any similar, rather unusual situations of the kind that my right hon. Friend described. I shall be very surprised if any genuine committees of that kind could not use one of the ways through to preserve its voting rights, which are in no way designed to disturb a situation such as that mentioned by my right hon. Friend. In the light of that solution to my right hon. Friend's particular problem and of my general assurance that the Bill is wide enough to deal with unspecified but similar cases, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Jopling: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that full explanation of the Government's attitude. My only concern is that other authorities may not take the statesmanlike attitude adopted by the South Lakeland district council and will say, "This seems a good opportunity to disfranchise those people to whom we previously, under a solemn agreement, gave voting rights." I hope that such cases do not arise. I know of no others, and as that is so it would be churlish of me to persist with my amendment. As my particular problem is solved, and as my right hon. Friend has added to the letter I received by saying that he is prepared to allow South Lakeland district council to do what it has asked, which is very welcome news, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13

VOTING RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES: SCOTLAND

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 20, line 5, at end insert—
`(aa) a committee appointed under section 57(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 at least two-thirds of the members of which are members of the appointing authority and the other members of which are members of another relevant authority;'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 21, in page 20, line 14, at end insert—
`(dd) a committee appointed under section 57(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 by the Highland Regional Council to discharge functions of a general planning authority, at least two-thirds of the members of which are members of the Highland Regional Council and the other members of which are members of a district council within Highland Region;'.

Mr. Kennedy: The amendments propose the insertion of two new subsections in clause 13.
The background to this specific aspect of the legislation is that the Government's proposals are being applied to a situation which is unique to the Highland region. Clause 13 will, with some exceptions, deny a vote to members of sub-committees, other than the elected members of the parent council involved.
I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I shall take a moment to put on record the anxiety which this has provoked within the Highlands of Scotland in local government circles, both at regional and, particu-larly, district level. If the proposal remains unamended when the legislation passes on to the statute book, it will strike directly at the continued operation of a divisional planning committee system within the Highland region.
Following local government reorganisation after the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the district councils in the Highland region, Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, were denied the local planning functions of that Act. The district councils involved have always found that unsatisfactory and, in an ideal world, would like those functions to be devolved to them on a wholescale basis. However, we are not dealing with that this evening.
The Highland region district councils are, in effect, sub-committees of the regional council's planning committee and are comprised of regional and district councillors, all of whom are entitled to vote on the various planning matters which come before the divisional committees. Not all the district councils are satisfied with that status quo. However, within the geography of the Highland region that is better than the obvious alternative, which would be for all planning matters, from the most insignificant to the major, to be handled at regional level. Therefore, in many cases, regional councillors would have to make decisions about comparatively small, local planning matters from which they may be extremely far removed.
As we heard in an earlier debate on a different subject, the land mass of the Highland regional council is colossal and it would not make local planning sense for regional councillors alone to adjudicate on extremely local planning issues. It would not be sensible to expect regional councillors, either in isolation or with a number of

colleagues from perhaps south-west Lochaber, to know whether to grant permission to erect a bed-and-breakfast sign in north-east Caithness. That was why there was a hybrid divisional planning function, which has managed to marry together the two remits involved. One of those is that the regional tier has the ultimate planning authority and legitimacy, but the district tier is wholly involved and therefore councillors on district councils are able to exert influence and have a direct vote on issues in their own locality.
What will the position be as a result of clause 13? The local authorities in the Highlands would wish for a complete exemption of their divisional planning committee system from the operations of clause 13. As the Scottish Office Minister will be aware, there have been discussions between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Highland region, Inverness district, representing the various districts in the Highlands, and his own Department.
I understand that the matter was considered too complex to be dealt with by amendment at this stage. In saying that, I may be anticipating part of the Minister's response to my remarks. I gather, however, that Scottish Office Ministers are not themselves opposed to such an arrangement, at least in principle. There may be more serious resistance from within the Department of the Environment, but I hope that both the present Secretary of State for Scotland and his immediate predecessor—and I see that a former Secretary of State is present—will be able to reassure the Department of the Environment that an exemption of this type within the specific geographical context—the contours perhaps—of Highland regional councils would not strike at any serious principle underlying the legislation.
I understand that Scottish Office officials have suggested that the problem for district councils might be overcome through the use of powers under section 56(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The districts, however, do not accept that that would be a reasonable course, and have therefore come up with what they consider appropriate alternatives, the spirit of which—along with some of the substance—is contained in these amendments.
If district councillors are disfranchised in their planning function in the area covered by Highland region, serious difficulties will be created. That would be a retrograde and impractical step, causing problems in the administration of the bulk of planning detail within the various district councils which together make up Highland region. To deny district council representatives a vote in that way would be to deny the areas that they represent and the communities from which they come a sense of belonging and of being slotted into what is frequently, on a day-to-day basis, one of the most lively, controversial and —in terms of public interest—engaging aspects of the local government function: the debate that arises as a result of planning applications and opposition to them.
On a number of occasions—in particular following the publication of the Stoddart report—Inverness and Ross and Cromarty districts sought a review of the allocation of planning powers within Highland region. At that time the present Secretary of State for Scotland, then Minister of State, felt unable to support their request. Nevertheless, I hope that, if he is unable to achieve that kind of recasting, the Minister will concede that to pass the clause unamended would be a backward step. Far from being a


further enhancement of district input to the divisional planning function, it would retreat significantly and leave us all with poorer planning procedures and control and with a much poorer democratic say.
I hope that, if he cannot accept the substance of the amendments, the Minister will tell us that the Government will act in accordance with their spirit, perhaps in another place.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has described expertly the present position. I do not believe that there is any difference of principle or of purpose between us. The system of regional planning committees, established by the Highland regional council, is very sensible and it has worked extremely well. We see no reason why it should be disrupted. The Stoddart committee, as the hon. Gentleman said, came to the same conclusion, and the Government supported that conclusion.
The amendments are not needed to achieve that aim. Paragraph (e) of subsection (5) of clause 13 provides, in effect, for the exemption of a committee which is established exclusively for the discharge of such functions of a relevant authority as may be prescribed by regulations. The whole purpose of the provision is to make it possible for particular local committees to be exempted from the effect of clause 13(1). I am confident that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be able to make the requisite regulations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend has every intention of doing precisely that.
To make quite sure, I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I shall look carefully at the drafting that will be required. I anticipate no difficulty in that connection, but if any technical problem should emerge I am sure that the correct solution will be to amend the regulation-making power so as to remove it. If such an amendment should prove to be necessary, we shall table it at a later stage. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that the amendments would serve no purpose that we do not already intend to achieve.

Mr. Kennedy: It is not often, particularly in Scottish politics, that an Opposition Member can wholeheartedly thank a Scottish Office Minister for a speech. However, I do so on this occasion. I found the Minister's speech constructive and reasonable. It offers the type of commitments with a view to the future stages of the Bill that we seek.
On behalf of the local authorities and my parliamentary colleagues who have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister and his Department's officials, may I take this opportunity to thank him for his extremely welcome speech and for the positive way in which the Government have responded to our request.[Interruption.] I hear some hon. Members saying, "Check it tomorrow." With that final proviso, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

POLITICAL BALANCE ON LOCAL AUTHORITY COMMITTEES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 237, in page 134, line 39, leave out from 'is' to end of line 41 and insert—

(a) a joint board within the meaning of section 235(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973;
(b) a board or committee appointed by one or more relevant authorities in exercise of a power conferred by a local enactment, being a board or committee seats on which are required to be filled by the appointment of members of the authority or of those authorities;
(c) a joint committee appointed by two or more relevant authorities under section 57(1)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.'.

No. 238, in page 135, line 40, leave out 'regional, islands or district council' and insert 'local authority'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 16

EXCEPTIONS TO AND EXTENSIONS OF POLITICAL BALANCE REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in page 23, line 35, at end insert—
`( ) No party or group representing 10% or more of a nominating body shall be totally excluded from the committee or sub-committee to which nominations are being made.'.
We strongly support the principle that underlies proportionality on committees. That point is dealt with in this clause. To that end we have tabled amendment No. 204. Despite Ministers having made their intentions clear, the Bill does not specifically provide for the protection of minorities. There are some local government politicians who are determined to frustrate the Government by ignoring the spirit of the clause.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the example that I shall use to illustrate my point. It concerns Cambridge city council and Cambridgeshire county council, though it is by no means the only example. In Cambridge there is a joint traffic management sub-committee, consisting of councillors from both councils. This year an arrangement has been reached between the majority city Labour group and the majority county Conservative group to exclude Democrats and to share the 10 seats equally between themselves, despite the fact that we hold seven of the 42 city seats and 10 of the 77 county seats.
A motion was put to the city council supporting the principles that are included in this clause, but Labour and Conservative members united to defeat it. Socialist members claimed that the Bill would not apply to that committee and therefore we seek to amend the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment would strengthen the Bill because clearly there are those who intend that these provisions should be held in contempt. It is not always the Democrats who are in danger of being squeezed in that way. Other parties in other local authorities are in similar circumstances. It is not a partisan point. Presumably the Minister accepts that, otherwise he would not have produced the provisions in this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 204 seeks to ensure only that the Government's intentions are adhered to. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister will accept the intention of the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am anxious to respond in the same spirit which has been evinced by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I am very happy to look at the specific example which he has given the House.
My purpose is to convince the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unnecessary. The Bill is being considered on Report and the legislation has not been enacted, so it will be interesting to discover whether the example which he cites will be caught by the legislation.
On the amendment which he tabled, simple arithmetic shows that any committee consisting of more than 10 members would be expected to include at least one representative of a party which comprises 10 per cent. or more of council members. Such an individual would be excluded from smaller committees of fewer than 10 members—and the amendment refers to sub-committees.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister is wrong about that. If there were fewer than 10 committee members, there would still have to be at least one representative of a group that represented 10 per cent. of the council. That group would then be disproportionately represented. Under the amendment at least it would be represented.

Mr. Trippier: I understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He kindly paid tribute to the fact that the Bill was seeking fairer proportional representation—if I dare use that expression—in terms of membership of committees.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have never fully understood the concern about representation of minority parties on committees such as local authority policy committees. Why are the Opposition not invited to have representation in Cabinet, for example? Why is it that Opposition parties are not represented in Cabinet? Why is it that we have a system in Westminster that totally excludes any Opposition Members on the policy-framing body of Government—the Cabinet—yet we impose it in local government? I do not understand that.

Mr. Trippier: I caution the hon. Gentleman not to press his point too far. If he is suggesting that he or right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would like to be members of the Cabinet or its Committee, given that there is collective responsibility among Ministers, he would have to be prepared to share responsibility for decisions which the Government take. I wonder whether that would be stretching credulity to breaking point. If that is official Labour party policy, let us hear about it, preferably from the Leader of the Opposition. I doubt whether we shall hear much more about it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When I was Conservative leader on a London borough, one of the things which most annoyed me was the fact that we, as the major opposition party, were excluded from the policy committee of the council which actually fixed the rate. The difference between a local authority committee and the Cabinet is that a local authority committee is an executive

committee which can put council policy into practice, without any further discussion. All Cabinet decisions have to be ratified by law through this House. That is a major difference. It is right that all elected councillors should have a say in the policy of the authority before it becomes law in the council.

Mr. Trippier: I do not know how far we are able to stray on this particular point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you rule us out of order. The most specific point that I can make to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is that in local government the whole council is responsible for the executive decisions. In national Government, the Government are a separate executive.

Mr. Soley: I offer the helpful advice to the Minister that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing a good job for the Opposition in the Cabinet. I think that he should be encouraged.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that we are not going to stray into higher constitutional principles.

Mr. Trippier: I was only going to reply briefly, before you ruled me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the greatest advantage we have at the moment is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, especially in view of the remarks that he made over the weekend.
However, I will now reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Truro. Main council committees, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will agree, normally consist of more than 10 members. The rules at least provide for members from an opposition group to be represented even on very small committees. The amendment would make it difficult or impossible for some councils to set up small committees to deal, for example, with urgent matters. Those of us who have served in local government know that there have to be committees or sub-committees set up for that precise purpose. If, for example, there were two minority groups with more than 10 per cent. of members, such small committees, under the terms of the amendment, would have to consist of at least five councillors from the majority party for them to retain a majority. I suggest to the House that that would be excessively bureaucratic.
I remain unconvinced by the thrust of the amendment. However, having given the undertaking to the hon. Member for Truro that I will look with great interest at the example he gave to see whether it will be caught by the Bill, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have listened with care to what the Minister said. Given that he has undertaken to look at the specific example I gave and see whether the difficulties I illustrated are likely to arise, I do not wish to press the amendment. I understand the Minister's concern about the terms of the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

DUTY TO ADOPT CERTAIN PROCEDURAL STANDING ORDERS

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 24, line 6, after 'State', insert
'subject to subsection (1A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 148, in page 24, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) no regulations may be made under this subsection except in circumstances where, in relation to an individual authority, that authority has not, within twelve months of the passing of this Act—

(a) considered proposed revisions to its Standing Orders, having regard to the content of guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
(b) made such revisions to its Standing Orders as it considers reasonable as a result of such consideration.'.

Mr. Howarth: Amendment No. 148 is consequential upon amendment No. 147. We are seeking to amend clause 17, which gives the Secretary of State power to regulate and, subject to such variations as may be authorised by regulation, to impose on local authorities the duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders. The amendment seeks to delay that process, so that if the Secretary of State has issued some suggestion or guidelines about what should be contained within the standing orders of any given local authority or group of local authorities and they do not comply within 12 months, the Secretary of State can make a regulation for them to do so.
The amendment arises because we have argued consistently that too much compulsion is placed on local authorities to do things that, in most cases, are not necessary. Earlier this evening, in a debate on another group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made the point that local authorities generally were being expected to do many things and to comply with many changes as a result of some Government-perceived abuses by a handful of local authorities, mostly in the London area. To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend.
As the Minister knows, I served on a local authority for about 14 years and we never moved outside our own standing orders. We had perfectly adequate standing orders with which we complied for the most part. If anybody breached those standing orders, it was pointed out to him and dealt with effectively. From time to time we amended them, as circumstances changed.
There is nothing unique about that. The majority of local authorities have adequate standing orders that enable them properly to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a council. We do not see why the vast bulk of those local authorities should be compelled by the Minister to carry out various changes to their standing orders, as determined by the Minister.
It is particularly rich that this Secretary of State, who spends more time in the courts than almost any Secretary of State in history answering for the irregularities of his Department, should be forcing local authorities to change their standing orders to meet some as yet unspecified regulation that the Government may wish to apply.
10.45 pm
The clause is not necessary but, given that it exists, if the Secretary of State wants to take those powers, why does he not say to the local authorities, "Here are some suggestions. You have 12 months to consider them. If you have not considered them after 12 months, I have reserve powers to do something about it"?
We do not like this compulsion, which is neither necessary for most local authorities, nor useful. It is deeply offensive to the vast bulk of local authorities and I urge the Minister at this stage, if he is serious about wanting to do something, to accept our amendment as it will give him those reserve powers without having to take draconian steps at the beginning of the process rather than waiting 12 months to see what happens.

Mr. Trippier: I should have guessed that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) would be selected to move the amendment because he is always so nice and reasonable about everything. I am delighted that he referred to his local authority of Knowsley so many times in Committee. It is not very surprising to many Conservative Members that Knowsley has not had much trouble with its model rules as it has only one Conservative member on its council. I do not suppose that he could have done much about the opposition—

Mr. George Howarth: There are four now.

Mr. Trippier: I apologise. It seems that there are now four. We must have won one or two council by-elections since I paid my last official visit there. It is certainly a high percentage increase.
It may well not be necessary to implement and to make statutory the model rules and I shall not be too hard about that point. However, I draw the House's attention to the fact that the Widdicombe committee recommended that the clarification and strengthening of standing orders might take the form of statutory provision. As we explained in the White Paper, "Conduct of Local Authority Business"—it is there for all to see—the Government would prefer voluntary guidance to be prepared by the local authority associations and the relevant Government Departments. That is already in hand. A working party of representatives of Government Departments and the local authority associations is at present preparing revised draft model standing orders. As we explained in the White Paper, we believe it is right to take powers to enable a statutory core of standing orders to be prescribed should that be judged desirable. The Government consider that core standing orders should cover various topics such as—these were discussed at the meetings to which I referred—the right of the minority party to put a matter on the agenda of the council or one of its committees or sub-committees; and provision to give chief officers the right to advise orally or in writing on any matter coming before a council or its committees for decision provisions to limit the powers of councils to suspend their standing orders.
Clause 17 would provide a power to require these on a uniform, national basis. I have looked carefully at the amendment proposed to clause 17 and it seems to me that its general objective is to leave the question of the adoption of standing orders entirely on a voluntary basis. Seemingly that is what the hon. Member for Knowsley, North is suggesting. I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that we


are approaching the matter on that basis but feel it right that there should be a power to enable a statutory core to be prescribed if necessary.
I hope that the amendment will be either withdrawn or rejected.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

DUTY TO ADOPT CERTAIN PROCEDURAL STANDING ORDERS

Amendments made: No 114, in page 24, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under this section may require such standing orders as are mentioned in that subsection to contain provision which, notwithstanding any enactment or the decision of any relevant authority or committee or sub-committee of a relevant authority, authorises persons who are members of such an authority, committee or sub-committee—

(a) to requisition meetings of the authority or of any of their committees or sub-committees;
(b) to require a decision of a committee or sub-committee of the authority to be referred to and reviewed by the authority themselves or by a committee of the authority;
(c) to require that a vote with respect to a matter falling to be decided by the authority or by any of their committees or sub-committees is to be taken in a particular manner.'.

No. 115, in line 17, leave out from 'appropriate' to end of line 20.

No. 235, in line 25, leave out 'regional, islands or district council' and insert 'local authority'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 18

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 236, in page 25, line 9, leave out `or joint committee'.

No. 126, in line 13, after 'omissions;', insert—
`proper officer"—

(a) in relation to a local authority in England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1972; and
(b) in relation to a local authority in Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973;'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

New Clause 23A

EXPENSES OF COMMISSIONS FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

'.—(1) The following provisions shall be substituted for paragraphs 6 to 11 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1974—

"Expenses of the Commissions

6.—(1) Each of the Commissions shall be treated as if they were a specified body for the purposes of sections 78 and 79 (revenue support grant) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"), and those sections shall accordingly have effect with the following modifications.
(2) Before making a determination under section 78 of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State shall, except in the case mentioned in paragraph 8 below, take into account estimates of the expenses of each Commission together with any observations thereon made and submitted to him in accordance with paragraph 7 below.
(3) The Secretary of State may also take into account any other information available to him as to the expenses of the Commissions, whatever its source.

(4) A determination under section 78 of the 1988 Act shall not be invalid merely because the requirements of paragraph 7 below were not complied with.
(5) For the purposes of section 78(7) of the 1988 Act, each Commission shall be treated as if they were also a notifiable authority.

7.—(1) Each Commission shall prepare an estimate of the expenses which they will incur in the forthcoming financial year with a view to submitting it to the Secretary of State.
(2) Each Commission shall send copies of the estimate to such representatives of local government as the Secretary of State directs for consideration by those representatives.
(3) Any observations by those representatives shall be submitted to the Commission within one month of the receipt of the Commission's estimate, and it shall be the duty of the Commission to take any such observations into consideration before submitting their estimate of their expenses to the Secretary of State.
(4) Each Commission shall, not later than such date in any year as the Secretary of State specifies in writing to the Commission, submit their estimate of their expenses for the forthcoming financial year to the Secretary of State together with copies of all observations made under this paragraph by the representatives of local government or, if none were made, together with a statement of that fact.
8. Where a Commission fail to submit an estimate of their expenses for the forthcoming financial year under paragraph 7 above, the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of a determination under section 78 of the 1988 Act, assume those expenses to he such as he sees fit.

(2) Any thing done before the passing of this Act which corresponds to a thing authorised or required to be done by any provision of the paragraphs 6(2) and (3), 7 and 8 substituted by subsection (1) above and done for the purposes of sections 78 and 79 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 shall be treated as validly done under that provision and those sections shall have effect accordingly.

(3) The foregoing provisions shall have effect for the financial years beginning on or after 1st April 1990.'.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government amendment No. 119.

Mrs. Bottomley: The Government have tabled four new clauses to part II which completes the package of reforms to the local ombudsman service outlined in the White Paper in response to the Widdicombe report. All these have the aim of making the local ombudsman more effective and efficient.
In Committee, measures were debated to improve compliance with the recommendations of the report. We now seek to introduce further provisions by means of new clauses 23A, 24 and 26 together with the consequential amendments Nos. 119 to 122 to give effect to the White Paper's outstanding proposals. These concentrate on the administrative details of the service and provide new arrangements for funding the English and Welsh commissions, new consultation arrangements with local authorities and other bodies within jurisdiction, to replace the representative body, an additional power for the commissioners to give advice and guidance on good administrative practice and a power for the Secretary of State to appoint advisory commissioners.

Mr. Soley: We covered this matter in some detail in Committee, so I will not traverse the ground again. At some stage we shall have to examine the functioning of the local authority commissioner because, useful and good though the work is, it is important, as we pointed out in Committee, given that it deals with local government affairs, for saying that local government should have some say in the financing and organising. Nor must we undermine the role of councillors, which was one of the strongest points we made in Committee. I also pointed out then that if the same standards that applied to local authorities were applied to private business we might have better services from private business for customers, and towards the people who work for those businesses. For the moment I will not debate the matter further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

ANNUAL REPORTS OF COMMISSIONS: NEW PROVISIONS

'.—(1) The representative body for England and the representative body for Wales designated under section 24 of the Local Government Act 1974 are hereby dissolved and accordingly that section shall cease to have effect.
(2) After section 23 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—

"Annual reports for representatives etc.
23A.—(1) For the financial year ending in 1990 and for each subsequent financial year, each of the Commissions shall prepare a general report on the discharge of their functions and shall submit it—

(a) to such persons as appear to the Commission to represent authorities in England or, as the case may be, authorities in Wales to which this Part of this Act applies, and
(b) in the case of such authorities as are not so represented, to those authorities.

(2) The report shall be submitted as soon as may be after the Commission has received the reports for the year from Local Commissioners under section 23(11) above, and each Commission shall submit copies of those reports, together with their own report.
(3) Each Commission shall arrange for the publication of the report submitted by them under subsection (1) above and of the reports of which copies are submitted by them under subsection (2) above.
(4) Before arranging for the publication of a report under subsection (3) above the Commission concerned shall give a reasonable opportunity for the representative persons and authorities to whom the report was submitted to comment on it.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, comments made by the representative persons and authorities by virtue of that subsection may relate to particular classes of authorities to which this Part of this Act applies.
(6) Where the Commission for Local Administration in Wales consist of only one Local Commissioner, section 23(11) above and subsection (2) above shall have effect with the necessary modifications.".'—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

ADVICE AND GUIDANCE BY COMMISSIONS FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND SCOTTISH COMMISSIONER

'.—(1) In section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974 (appointment and functions of Commissions for Local Administration) there shall be inserted, after subsection (12), the following subsections—
(12A) Each of the Commissions may, after consultation with the representative persons and authorities concerned, provide to the authorities or any of the authorities to which this Part of this Act applies

such advice and guidance about good administrative practice as appears to the Commission to be appropriate and may arrange for it to be published for the information of the public.
(12B) The representative persons and authorities concerned are—

(a) for the purposes of subsection (12) above, such persons appearing to the Commission to represent authorities in England or, as the case may be, authorities in Wales to which this Part of this Act applies, and in the case of such authorities as are not so represented, those authorities; and
(b) for the purposes of subsection (12A) above, such of those persons and authorities as the Commission think appropriate."

(2) In section 21 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (appointment and functions of Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland) there shall be inserted, after subsection (4), the following subsection—
(4A) The Commissioner may, after consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be appropriate, provide to the authorities to which this Part of this Act applies such advice and guidance about good administrative practice as appears to him to be appropriate and may arrange for it to be published for the information of the public.".'.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

ADVISORY COMMISSIONERS

'.—(1) Section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974 (constitution and functions of Commissions for Local Administration) shall have effect with the amendments specified in subsections (2) to (4) below.
(2) In subsection (1), at the end, there shall be added the words "but each of the Commissions may include persons appointed to act as advisers, not exceeding the number appointed to conduct investigations.
(3) In subsection (3). after the words "Parliamentary Commissioner" there shall be inserted the words "or an advisory member".
(4) In subsections (4), (5) and (6) the word "Local" shall be omitted.
(5) In Schedule 4 to the said Act, in paragraph 3 (remuneration), at the end there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

POWER OF LOCAL COMMISSIONER TO SEEK COSTS AND DAMAGES

`Where a local authority fails to take action to remedy the injustice to the person aggrieved and to prevent similar injustice being caused in the future the local commissioner shall have the power to institute legal proceedings against the local authority on behalf of the complainant who has suffered injustice and to seek from the court damages and the recovery of any costs involved in both the initial investigation and any subsequent proceedings.'—[Mr. Nicholas Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that if a local authority ignores the findings of the ombudsman where a case of injustice has taken place, the local ombudsman should have the power to institute legal proceedings against the local authority on behalf of the complainant


who has suffered injustice, and seek from the court damages and the recovery of any costs involved in both the initial investigation and any subsequent proceedings.
The new clause arises out of an intervention that I made on Second Reading and from subsequent correspondence with the Minister of State concerning the case of Mr. and Mrs. Quinn, constituents of mine who used to own a property in Coventry. When they wanted to sell the lease of a fashion store which they owned there for £37,300, the Coventry city council insisted on buying it for £20,000, although my constituent had a buyer at £17,300 more. Later the council sold the same property for £51,000 and the ombudsman ruled that the city council had been guilty of maladministration and had lost my constituents £17,300. Two ombudsman reports found the city council guilty, yet it refused to act. Its leader, Mr. Jim Cunningham, said that although the Minister had said that he might have to change the law to force recalcitrant councils to abide by the rulings of ombudsmen, it would not alter its decision. I understand that the Government have taken no subsequent action.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a leading article in the Coventry Evening Press, which said that the council had been found guilty for a second time of
a spivish piece of sharp practice … By cocking another snook at the Ombudsman's findings the council has shown itself markedly unfit to criticise the worst excesses of private enterprise sanctioned under the Thatcherism it claims to despise.
I do not agree with that last comment, but if local authorities continue to ignore the findings of the ombudsman he should be given teeth. My new clause would give him the right to bite councils if they cocked a snook.

Mr. Wallace: In general I endorse the aims of the new clause. For local councils wilfully to ignore the recommendations of the ombudsman is a denial of justice, especially for the individual. There should be some authority to enforce a judgment for damages.
I part company with the new clause in that it seeks an award of costs against the local authority for the initial investigation and subsequent proceedings. I would not object to an award of costs incurred by the complainant, but if I were a poll tax payer in a local authority that had been found guilty of maladministration I would think it very rich indeed if I had to cough up for what was essentially a transfer between two public bodies. To seek the award of such costs would be unfair to the poll taxpayers, but for individual rights—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the generality of taxpayers should not have to pay for the refusal of a particular local authority? If anyone has to pay, it should be the poll tax payers in that local authority, who could then make judgment on that local authority at the next election.

Mr. Wallace: It is a transfer from one public body to another. It would bear much more heavily on individual poll tax payers in a local authority than it would if it were paid for through the generality of taxation. Nevertheless, the extent to which the new clause asserts the importance of individual rights encourages me to vote in favour of it.

Mr. Soley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has any intention of pressing his new clause to a Division, and so he has again misled his

constituent. If he did press it to a Division, he would not only have to vote against his own Government but he would have to consider the possibility of imposing exactly the same conditions for the Government ombudsman. If he did that to his party he would be pulled down to see the Whips, who would box his ears and tell him not to be so silly in future. That is what the Conservative party does to hon. Members who stray from the party line.
There is a case for saying that the views of the ombudsman must seriously be taken into account, and in almost all cases they are. The important point is that the courts exist to be used properly and the electorate is the final judge. If the Government or any Conservative Member were serious about the new clause, they would insist on it applying to the Government ombudsman. There would then be arguments about whether the taxpayers should pay for that.
There is another problem for Conservative Members who support the new clause. One day there might need to be an ombudsman to redress some of the grievances in the private sector, and perhaps—just perhaps—some of those Members would have to pay for that.

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that the House will feel that that last intervention served much purpose except to divert attention from the seriousness of the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has raised. I am unhappy when a local authority refuses to accept the impartial decision of the ombudsman. It is just as wrong if it is a Conservative authority as it is if it is a Labour authority. That is why in the next few days I am taking action to bring home to a Conservative council near Coventry a similar circumstance. It was not as serious in terms of money and perhaps more excusable in terms of the decision, but it was still a refusal to accept the independent adjudication of the ombudsman.
11 pm
The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke raises is one which I think nobody but the purblind supporters of a particular circumstance could possibly defend. There is no doubt that Coventry owes this couple £17,500. On two occasions that has been the adjudication. I do not believe that my hon. Friend expressed the case with his usual sharpness because he missed out the important aspect. The local authority sold the property, which it had insisted upon buying, at a price £17,500 less than had been negotiated, to the very people with whom the sale had been negotiated. Therefore, what happened was that my hon. Friend's constituent arranged a sale for his wool shop at £17,500 more than the local authority paid him, only to find that the local authority sold that shop on to the very people to whom it had agreed to sell in the first place. In other words, the matter was clear and significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Coventry city council stands condemned by the ombudsman, condemned by its own local paper and I think condemned by any right-thinking person. I am sorry that it has taken that step, because Coventry is a great city which does not deserve such a decision.
I must ask what would happen if I either supported the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke or if I were to find another way of making the decisions of the ombudsman enforceable by law. A large number of authorities are accustomed to solving such problems during the discussions. Labour, Liberal and Conservative


authorities often realise, part the way through discussions, that on balance they should have made a different decision or dealt with the problem in a different way. Perhaps they still maintain that they were right, but to gain the support of the community they feel that they should handle the matter differently. That happens so often and to such great effect in hon. Members' constituencies, and is for the benefit of their constituencies, that I am loath to move towards the proposals in the new clause. Every time that the local government ombudsman started his discussions he was met with a very legalistic response because the local authority would know that it might end up being forced by law to do something. That is the real issue.

Mr. Soley: The Minister has come round to the point that I suggested he would—it is a nonsense suggestion. His earlier comments, incidentally, were largely creative literature about Coventry, as any reading of the debate in Committee will tell him, but will he bear in mind that his party's councillors supported the Coventry council in Committee?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has already perpetrated that inaccurate statement and he must withdraw it. It was Conservative councillors who brought the issue before the general council, otherwise the council would not have discussed it. The council divided and the Conservatives voted against the decision of the council. The hon. Gentleman is not right and he must not repeat statements that are wrong. He has done it before and he has been shown to be wrong.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister denying that the Conservative councillors on the committee that dealt with the issue—remember they were the ones who went into detail—approved?

Mr. Gummer: The Conservative party on the council insisted that the matter be brought before the general council when they voted against the council. It is no good trying to ignore what happened. Even if the Conservatives had supported it lock, stock and barrel it was wrong and it should not have happened. Similarly an action by Hinckley and Bosworth, next door to that council, is wrong and should not have happened. That council should also accept what the ombudsman has said.
I hope that the House will note that, throughout this discussion, I have been willing to criticise Conservative as well as Labour councils, but that Opposition Members, as usual, have a partial view of the truth. The Coventry council, whatever party may run it, should not have disobeyed the proposition of the ombudsman. It cheated a small business man of £17,500. It has been found to have cheated on two separate occasions and I am sorry that the citizens of that city have been presented to the outside world in such a manner.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Leaving aside the smart Alick remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who is not interested in the case of individual people who have received such treatment, in future will the Department of the Environment—

Mr. O'Brien: This is a charade.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Department consider the progress of ombudsman cases? If the ombudsman's findings are ignored in a succession of cases, will the Department come back to this matter?

Mr. Gummer: First, I want to answer the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) who spoke about a charade. Before the hon. Gentleman shouts out what he does not understand, he should know that I have spent a great deal of time trying to find a way to make Coventry and other councils accept the law. I have found that there is an easy way to do that, but that that carries a disadvantage that is greater than the advantage. If Opposition Members think that this is a charade, they do not appreciate how seriously we judge when someone is cheated out of money by a public authority. What is even more serious is that an hon. Member of this House should say that such action was wrong. Does the hon. Member for Normanton think that it was wrong for the council to deny the ombudsman's report?

Mr. O'Brien: The charade refers to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) who has no intention of pressing the new clause—we knew that from the start. He is being unfair to his constituents and his actions constitute a charade.

Mr. Gummer: I repeat the question—was it wrong to cheat that family of £17,500?

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I want the hon. Member for Normanton to tell me whether the council was wrong.

Mr. O'Brien: This is a night of charades.

Mr. Gummer: Once again the hon. Gentleman refuses to say that he believes that the council was wrong.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way as the hon. Gentleman has had every opportunity to make his case.
The House can make a distinction between those on the Conservative Benches who have publicly admitted that the actions of a Conservative council were wrong—as well as those of a Labour council—and the actions of Opposition Members who, when challenged to say whether it was right to cheat someone of £17,500, were not prepared to admit it.
I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, but I believe that there are good reasons for not doing so.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have listened with care to the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend. I am satisfied that he has put forward strong objections to this new clause and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it. However, I will keep an eye on the situation and if this matter and other matters like it are not resolved I will bring the issue back on a future occasion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

CONSIDERATION OF ADVERSE REPORTS: SCOTLAND

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 230, in page 30, line 32, leave out from `committee' to end of line 36 and insert


'as is mentioned in section 23(2) of this Act; or
(b) an education committee appointed under section 124 of the Act of 1973;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 231, 239 and 240,

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 are drafting amendments.
I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that amendments Nos. 241 and 242, which are not linked with amendments 239 and 240 are identical, and with your leave I will speak to them too.
These amendments are designed to address the rather different Scottish circumstances in terms of arrangements for consultation between central Government and local government. I do not think that I need to go into them in greater detail.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:— No. 231, in page 30, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert
`a joint committee—

(a) established under section 56 of the Act of 1973 or under paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 or paragraph 6 of Schedule 20 to that Act (local authority, education and social work joint committees); or
(b) referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), or (e) of section 23(2) of this Act (fire, police and local government and teachers' superannuation joint committees).'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 24

NATIONAL CODE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONDUCT

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 205, in page 25, line 1, leave out
`for the guidance of members of local authorities'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take amendments Nos. 206, in page 32, line 2, leave out `recommended'.
and 207, in page 32, line 29, leave out 'guided' and insert 'bound'.

Mr. Taylor: I and my hon. Friends have tabled these amendments because without them, in our view, clause 24 is a worthless piece of bureaucracy designed to do nothing but facilitate the contempt in which many members of both Labour and, particularly, Conservative councils continue to hold the current national code of local government conduct.
As I have said, those councillors—and they are the overwhelming majority from all parties—who are honourable people will naturally accept whatever guidance is given them by the Secretary of State so long as it continues to be in the spirit of the current code. However, if the need is to improve the quality of local government it is not to those people that the Secretary of State needs to be addressing himself. It is to others who do not follow that code in a way that I believe is fitting within local government and who do not accept the guidance contained in the code.
Clearly, Ministers believe that they should follow the code, but when it comes to people such as, for example, the Conservative leader of Kingston council, who, despite having been given several specific opportunities, refuses to endorse the code, we cannot have confidence that they will follow it. Asking such people to be guided by such a code is like asking a kleptomaniac to be guided by the Ten

Commandments. It just will not happen. They clearly do not believe that they should be so guided. They will not be so guided and the Ministers should be doing something about it. Any councillor who is not prepared to be bound by the national code of local government conduct should clearly not be a councillor in the first place.
The amendment is designed to ensure that councillors, when elected and working on local authorities, are so bound. If Ministers genuinely believe that they should follow the code there is no reason for them not to accept these amendments. I hope that the hon. Lady who is to reply will accept that this is about controlling those who are determined, despite holding positions of responsibility, not to be bound by the code unless they have to be. Nothing in the Bill will do anything to affect the conduct of those who are determined not to follow the Minister's wishes and what are my wishes and, I suspect, the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I will not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance, the value and indeed the necessity of increasing the code's prominence. That is why we have been busy updating the national code of local government conduct, which will be prescribed by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. Councillors will be required, on taking office, to declare that they will abide by the code.
I am not able to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment because it reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the code. It is a frame of reference providing broad principles and general guidance to members, but it is not a definitive rule book. It lays down important standards of behaviour, but it deals with matters which, by their nature, are not sufficiently clear-cut to be given statutory force.
The imposition of a requirement of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman would require a different approach to the format, style and content of the code and that would risk damaging its value altogether by trying to make it something that it clearly cannot be. To impose the code on members and to alter its advisory status would endanger the acceptability of the code among members and complicate the code.
However, we are strengthening the code, updating it and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will prescribe it. In addition, there is the material difference that the local ombudsman, on investigation of a case, will, if he believes that maladministration has resulted from a breach of the national code, be required to name the individual involved unless he believes that it would be unjust to do so.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that represents a significant enhancement of the status of the code and will make all involved realise the weight that the Government attach to it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am not satisfied that anything will be done to tackle the abuse of current councillors who say that they do not accept the nature of the code. Simply asking them to agree to be guided by it means little if they do not believe in the principles that it embodies in the first place. Nothing that the Minister has said will do anything to make them follow it.
However, I shall not press the amendment since we are about to debate two amendments which may allow the


Minister to modify her position. If she accepts amendment No. 208 it will give the ombudsman the power to take some action against individuals who act in the way that I have suggested. However, I shall come to that matter in a moment. In that respect only, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 239, in page 32, line 8, after 'consult', insert—
'(a) as respects England and Wales'.
No. 240, in page 32, line 8, after 'government', insert 'and
(b) as respects Scotland, such associations of local authorities'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 25

ANONYMITY IN REPORTS ON INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 33, line 15, at end insert
'where the local commissioner is of the opinion that the maladministration or breach of the National Code of Local Government Conduct is of a serious nature he may recommend to the Secretary of State that the member be barred from office for an appropriate period'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 209, in page 33, line 30, at end insert
'where the local commissioner is of the opinion that the maladministration or breach of the National Code of Local Government Conduct is of a serious nature he may recommend to the Secretary of State that the member be barred from office for an appropriate period'.

Mr. Taylor: I mentioned these amendments a second ago when I noticed that the Minister had a quick look at what was coming. Perhaps she forgot to mention earlier that she had decided to accept these amendments, so that we need not be concerned about the previous group—at least, I hope so.
These amendments follow logically from the argument that I have just presented. It is clear that if the national code of local government is to be effective, there must be some sanction on local councillors.
The Minister has already said that she does not believe that people should be bound by law to follow the code of conduct. However, the amendments would give the local commisioner the power to take action where there were serious breaches of the code by offences which in his view made the perpetrators unfit to hold office. In that way we would give the local commissioner some teeth so that the public and other councillors could see that justice was being done.
I hope that it would never be necessary for such powers to be exercised because councillors seeing that such powers existed would follow the code rather than simply pledging themselves without feeling constrained to follow it in practice.
The amendment specifically says:
where the local commissioner is of the opinion that the maladministration or breach of the National Code of Local Government Conduct is of a serious nature he may recommend to the Secretary of State that the member be barred from office for an appropriate period.
Clearly, ultimately, the decision would lie with the Secretary of State, but it would be only after a thorough investigation and only in the most extreme circumstances.
If the Minister believes that councillors should follow the code of conduct, she must believe that ultimately there ought to be some form of sanction against councillors who do not observe it properly. In too many cases the reality is that councillors display a cynicism both to their directorate and to their council. Unless changes are made, not only will the code be ineffective, but the Government will make a mockery of their own attempt to argue that codes of conduct should be observed.

Mr. Soley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but they are ill-advised. As I said in Committee, it is always a mistake to attempt to establish structures that override democracy. The hon. Gentleman said that the local electorate are often cynical about councillors. I can tell thim that they are often cynical about Members of Parliament, too. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to see councillors overridden, he must be prepared to see right hon. and hon. Members overridden by the commissioner for parliamentary business, with the power to say, "This Member has behaved improperly and therefore should be debarred." Ultimately, it is far more critical in defending democracy to ensure that the final say remains with the electorate.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman touches on a delicate area. A comparable situation for Members of Parliament is the declaration of a Member's interests. Does he believe that any sanction should attach to a right hon. or hon. Member who fails to comply with that requirement?

Mr. Soley: The House debated that issue earlier, when I remarked that it was wrong to treat councillors differently from Members of Parliament and that there should be broad but similar guidelines covering all elected representatives. There is a proper debate to be had about the extent to which such a person should be allowed to participate and vote in a debate in which he has a personal interest. The point was made in an earlier debate—and I am not being critical of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for not being present in the Chamber at the time—that there should be similar rules for right hon. and hon. Members as there are for councillors.
I am making the more fundamental point that if one believes in the primacy of the electorate, one must let them decide for themselves—even though I am the first to agree that, at times, they are cynical about councillors and Members of Parliament.
The danger in the last group of amendments from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was that, under them, the local authority ombudsman could have debarred many of the Coventry city councillors, both Labour and Conservative. Despite what was said by the Minister—and the word "cheats" was used—anyone who reads the details of the Coventry case, which was incredibly complex and endured for many months, and in which there were two sides to the argument, will be aware that if the local authority had followed the ombudsman's recommendations the councillors might have been surcharged. One can imagine the problem that would have arisen if the ombudsman had had the right to disbar them from office. We cannot go down that road, which poses a danger to parliamentary and local democracy. Although the


amendments are well intentioned, the end result would be a form of executive decision-making that overrode elected members—and that would be undesirable.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that the amendments are well intentioned. We are united in wanting to ensure that the national code is widely regarded and highly respected, and is observed. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) hopes that it will never be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take certain steps. As matters stand it would be impossible for him to do so, because he does not have the power to bar a local authority member from office.
The Register of Members' Interests has already been debated, but the national code is a different issue concerning more general conduct and the way in which local government members should behave and discharge their responsibilities—which is much harder to enforce strictly, by statute. However, the measures already outlined for identifying a particular member who was in breach of the code which had led to maladministration will have a dramatic effect.
The hon. Member for Truro questioned whether we had a cynicism towards local councils and the electorate. We have a great deal of confidence in local councils and the electorate. Once a member has been identified as having breached the code, giving rise to maladministration, I have confidence that councils and the electorate will take the necessary steps.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: When I am told that my amendments are well intentioned I know that the Liberal party still survives within the Social and Liberal Democrats. I listened to what the Minister said and hope that she will be proved right in practice.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27

RESTRICTIONS ON PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Battle: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in page 34, line 41, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (2A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 249, in page 34, line 41, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.
No. 250, in page 35, line 1, after 'above', insert
`but subject to subsection (2A) below'.
No. 251, in page 35, line 1, after 'above', insert
`but subject to subsection (3A) below'.
No. 252, in page 35, line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) No Regulations made under subsections (1) or (2) above shall operate to prevent a relevant authority which does not have assisted area or aid status for exercising its power to provide financial assistance by way of grants, loans or guarantees under section 26(2) above, or otherwise to create any restriction which would have a differential effect on the exercise of such powers for those purposes as between authorities in different areas.'.
No. 253, in page 35, line 16, at end insert—
'(3A) No Regulations made under subsections (1) or (2) above shall prohibit the exercise by a relevant authority of its powers under section 26(2) in relation to activities

(a) which fall within the scope of any scheme for the

promotion of employment, training or enterprise sponsored by any Department of State; or
(b) in respect of which the authority receives financial assistance from the European Community.'.

No. 254, in page 35, line 19, at end insert—
`(4A) The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the first date on which any regulations under this section come into effect, undertake a review of the operation of such regulations, and publish the results.
(4B) The Secretary of State shall, as part of the conduct of any review established under subsection (4A) above, consult the local authority associations and such other organisation or individuals concerned with the promotion of local employment and enterprise as appear to him to be concerned.'.

Mr. Battle: We now move on to part III of the Bill which deals with economic development. We welcome the introduction of clause 26 and the introduction of the new economic development powers. We found it surprising that, although one clause introduces the new power, it is followed by another three pages in part III which take away the provisions of the power. The margin note to clause 27 defines them as:
Restrictions on promotion of economic development.
The restrictions will be left to regulation, and we do not yet know what that will be. To that extent it will be in the hands of the Secretary of State. We should sort it out here and now, on the face of the Bill, and ask whether it is necessary to restrict this power once it has been given. The power seems to be given with one hand and swiftly taken away with the other.
Economic development is not new in local authorities. Certainly, some of them have played a vital role in the analysis of the development of the local economy, and have contributed to it. Before I came to the House I served as a member of Leeds city council which was active in the early 1980s in precisely this way, and we used what provisions we could from the urban programme and other sources.
It is fair to say that Government priority in economic development tends to be focused particularly on travel-to-work areas and areas with assisted status. Under the new regulations, will the power be restricted to those areas? If so, many local authorities will miss out because the designations of those areas and often the industries that cover them cover wide areas that mask real areas of deprivation and areas in need of economic development.
I shall give an example from Yorkshire and Humberside to illustrate my point. Unemployment at the coast in the town of Bridlington stands at 19 per cent. but that is covered by the Bridlington and Driffield travel-to-work area in which the unemployment rate is only 4 per cent. The local problem in Bridlington is disguised because the case is judged simply by the travel-to-work area.
In my own city, Lord Joseph, who represented a part of Leeds, redefined the boundaries of the travel-to-work area. In defining the relationship between Leeds and Bradford, a part of south Leeds, which was one of the poorest parts of the city, was left out of the travel-to-work area for assisted area status purposes. The Pudsey area which was one of the wealthiest parts of Leeds was drawn in under the Bradford assisted area status. Substantial pockets of inner-city deprivation can be masked in that way. In my constituency, Armley is practically an urban village of the kind that grow up around key local industries such as textiles and engineering. Where those industries have been hit hard there are pockets of unemployment.
The local authorities that engage in economic development are not only in the large cities, but in rural areas where the population may be much smaller. Many rural authorities are involved in such development, through grants and loans to small businesses and the like. Their official statistics, when compared with the figures for densely populated areas such as the large cities, will not show up the local need.
11.30 pm
But value of assistance to local areas ought to be widely recognised. For example, Ashford, Kent—in the overheated south-east—uses financial powers to relocate badly-sited small businesses. It may need to exercise those powers even more if British Rail's proposals go ahead. Why not? There is no reason for Ashford to be penalised, and no reason for it not have discretion to exercise the new power.
I shall not rehearse our Committee debate; the Minister's response then, however, gave us the impression that we were talking about financial assistance itself rather than the primary power. Our concern is with the power itself; why not leave it with local authorities, and let them choose whether to provide financial assistance?
The Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham university recently carried out a survey on the impact of possible geographic restrictions if the new power is applied. Of the 330 authorities that responded, 148—about 40 per cent.—were identified as having no special-area status, and of the authorities providing direct financial assistance nearly half were located in the south-east. Most were in the shire districts, with a moderately sized population; about half were Conservative-controlled and one third Labour-controlled. One conclusion in the report states:
"the findings suggest that the restriction of powers to give financial assistance to businesses to places with special area designation would curtail these activities in a number of highly active authorities, some of which are operating in areas of high unemployment. In addition, a number of authorities which do not offer financial assistance at present are active in other fields of economic development. They may also be prevented from expanding their activities, for example to respond to change in local unemployment rates, if the proposed restrictions are enacted".
It is clear that the regulations could well have that effect, inadvertently or otherwise. We are not in a position to say, because we do not know what will be in them. We do not think that some authorities should be penalised as against others. I repeat that we are not talking about the amount of financial assistance; indeed, the Government have the power to cap such assistance. What we are talking about is the power itself. The power presented in clause 26 is welcome; why can it not be for all?
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the rationalisation of the economic development power in the Bill. As he said, local government has been involved in economic development over the years but has had to use a wide range of measures to justify it. Even section 75 of the Weights and Measures Act 1986, I understand, can be used as a basis for setting up an advice system for consumers, and it is important to give the powers some coherence.
The hon. Gentleman said that much of the Bill is concerned with restrictions and limitations. We believe

that that is appropriate. Because of these measures, the hon. Gentleman's constituency and those of many Opposition Front Benchers are likely to benefit more than my constituency or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Consultations are taking place with local authorities on the precise form of the regulations. The hon. Gentleman believes that they should not prevent local authorities giving assistance in grants, loans and guarantees where those authorities do not have assisted area status or otherwise discriminate between authorities. We want to find a way of having regard to the criteria that face different local authority areas and ensuring that they can use the economic development power, especially through loans, grants and guarantees. This would be inappropriate in some of the more privileged areas.
The amendments taken with amendment No. 248 relate to concern about the unnecessary and unhelpful restrictions on the scope of the regulations as they apply to other Government Departments and the European Community. I assure hon. Members that my Department keeps in close touch with all other Government Departments that have an interest in the use of the new power. In that way, we can ensure that the power that we are giving local authorities does not have an adverse effect on those activities in which they are involved at the request or on behalf of other Government Departments.
The amendments mention training. It is important to emphasise that the Government have a strong view about the crucial importance of training in establishing businesses. It is certainly not our intention that the regulations should inhibit that in any way.
Amendment No. 254 provides that, if the regulations cause any difficulty, there will be a requirement to review them within two years. That is unnecessary. We shall continue to examine the effect of the regulations.
I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) accepts that there are certain economic development measures that it is appropriate and right to target towards areas of greatest need. We wish to finalise those matters in collaboration and on the basis of discussion with local authority associations. It is important to ensure that those powers operate in conjunction with the provisions of other Government Departments and assistance from the European Community. We shall, of course, continue to examine the operation of these measures and review them accordingly. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Mr. Battle: The Minister referred to other Government Departments—that was an interesting analogy. In providing nationwide support under the enterprise initiative or the enterprise allowance scheme, the Government recognise that if they give an enabling power, they need not impose restrictions. Can I instead suggest that local authorities should determine whether to exercise that power? When talking about the economy, Ministers have referred to level playing fields. I see no reason why we cannot have a level playing field in determining the use of a local authority's economic power.
We are still left with unspecified restrictions. The Government seem to be uncertain about clause 26. They are prepared to introduce it, but it is as though they are


feeling their way with a piecemeal introduction because they are not willing to go the whole way in letting local authorities use the power.
This is not a special pleading for my own constituency. Leeds has lost its assisted area status; it has gone to Bradford. The irony is that I am pleading on behalf of many unemployment black spots in the south, such as Thanet and Clacton, and areas such as Selby. These areas could well use the new start up and small business provision. It should be a nationwide power. It ought not to be restricted.
We ought to divide the House and press the Government not to restrict the power. We should prefer it to be available to all local authorities. We cannot live in the hope that unspecified restrictions will be provided in the future, according to circumstances. Every local authority would then have to appeal directly to the Department, according to its own particular circumstances. Either it is a general power or it is not.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The economic development power is an important power. Any question of restriction applies only to grants, loans and guarantees of borrowing to businesses run for profit. All other forms of assistance will be permissible everywhere. All inner urban areas, rural development areas and derelict land clearance areas will be included.
The Government are happy to consider other areas, but it is important to stress that consultations are still taking place to ensure that there are no arbitrary cut-offs. I repeat that it is the provision of financial assistance that will be restricted. Other forms of assistance—training, advice and guidance—will be available throughout the country.

Mr. Battle: Again the Minister has missed the point. I am not talking simply about ITEC training. The key point relates to loans and grants to small businesses. Of course the question is whether a business is being run at a profit. I hope that the Government are concerned that businesses should be run at a profit. It is not a charitable operation; it has to do with economic development.
I should have thought that the Government would be surprised that we are pressing the issue, because we agree with them on that point. However, the Government say that they intend to restrict the power in the case of of some authorities but not in the case of others. The question has nothing to do with the amount of money. It is simply whether any local authority in Britain can exercise that power. I am still not happy with the Minister's reply. Therefore, I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 154.

Division No. 238]
[11.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foster, Derek


Battle. John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beith, A. J.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Blunkett, David
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ingram, Adam


Clay, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Livsey, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAllion, John





Maxton, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pike, Peter L.



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Allen McKay


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Amess, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Amos, Alan
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Arbuthnot, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Ashby, David
Irvine, Michael


Atkinson, David
Jack, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jackson, Robert


Baldry, Tony
Janman, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bottomley, Peter
Lilley, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lord, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maclean, David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Maples, John


Carrington, Matthew
Miller, Sir Hal


Carttiss, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Needham, Richard


Conway, Derek
Nicholls, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Norris, Steve


Couchman, James
Paice, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Patnick, Irvine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Pawsey, James


Day, Stephen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Durant, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Emery, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Fallon, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Favell, Tony
Redwood, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Renton, Tim


Forman, Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Riddick, Graham


Forth, Eric
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Franks, Cecil
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Freeman, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


French, Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gregory, Conal
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Grist, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hague, William
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Stevens, Lewis


Hayes, Jerry
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Heddle, John
Summerson, Hugo






Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Warren, Kenneth


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 28

GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION ABOUT PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I beg to move amendment No. 316, in page 35, line 24, leave out subsection (1).
At 11.53 pm, I will be as brief as possible. The amendment—

Mr. Tony Banks: Take your time, kid.

Mr. Welsh: The amendment seeks to delete subsection 28(1), which will impose a duty on local authorities to seek guidance from the Secretary of State about any expenditure on the promotion of local economic development. The Bill places yet another statutory obligation on local authorities to put themselves into the clutches of the Secretary of State when they simply set about exercising the powers of economic promotion allocated to them.
Local government can, and should be, a significant and knowledgable contributor to local economic regeneration and a prime motivator in encouraging local economic activity.
My fundamental objection is to yet another example of unnecessary central Government interference with duly given local government powers. Clause 28(1) sets out to shackle local government in its attempts to determine the exact nature and requirements of local industrial promotion. As ever, with the anti-local government mob which now runs the United Kingdom's central Government, central Government will determine what will and what can be done by local authorities in such matters. That is yet another clawing back of power from local government to central Government, and is another unnecessary demand on local authorities.
My objection is that I do not believe that central Government is always right in such matters. Local authorities have few enough industrial powers devolved to them and little enough cash to meet their industrial problems. Therefore, it is somewhat unnecessarily heavy-handed of central Government to take these further restrictive powers over duly elected local councils.
Local authorities know the local situation and the industrial development and promotional needs of their local areas in a way that is quite impossible for central Government. That is why they should be allowed full control in getting on with such matters to ensure that there is industrial regeneration and innovation in their areas.
However, the Bill seeks further to stop the scope for such initiatives in the industrial promotion that is at the heart of any new initiatives and developments locally. I

know from first hand the expertise and ability of local authority staff—men and women who understand and who know personally the economic profile of their areas—

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am not entirely clear whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that these measures do not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Lady will have noticed that I have not specifically mentioned Scotland, which I normally do. I am sure that the expertise that I have found at first hand exists also in English local authorities.
Local government should be given the powers and the authority to get on with those activities because local authorities know the local situation.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Welsh: Oh dear.

Mr. Bennett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I simply want to place on the record the fact that we welcome his part in English legislation and hope that we can take part in Scottish legislation.

Mr. Welsh: Well, it is a return match for the interference that the hon. Gentleman has made in my country's legislation. Perhaps I am getting one back, but I hope that I am doing so in a positive and useful way.
Local authorities know best how to promote local industry in their areas because they know the economic needs in a way that central Government cannot. Why should local government officials, under policy guidance from democratically elected local councillors, not be allowed to get on with their work of dealing with the local economic problems without always being hedged in by legislation and by Big Brother in central Government? Legislation has already severely limited the powers and initiative allowed to local people. My fundamental objection is that the Bill worsens rather than improves the situation. Economic development, promoted and encouraged with sensitivity by people with local knowledge and, more importantly, the power to get on with the job, would be a far better objective than that of this part of the Bill.
I do not in any way object to local authorities having a duty to report on their plans in each financial year to ensure that local plans fitted in with the Government's broader strategic economic planning function. That is why my amendment seeks to remove the first subsection only of clause 28. Local authorities have been given little enough freedom of action and few enough resources to create employment and to encourage local enterprise. My amendment would at least free them from one more unnecessary restriction on their powers of action.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Apart from the explanation to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that this provision is not available in Scotland at the moment, I should like to inform him that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has welcomed the fact that more time will be allowed for the development of the separate proposals for Scotland. However, judging from the hon. Gentleman's remarks, perhaps he would not like the power to be extended there.

Mr. Maxton: I am also sure that the party of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has little or no influence in COSLA, which is almost entirely dominated by the Labour party.
12 midnight

Mrs. Bottomley: The amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State may give guidance under subsection (1). While obviously it will probably be necessary for guidance to be given in the form of circulars at the time of the regulations being enacted, it is not necessarily our intention to issue further specific guidance to local authorities.
If specific guidance were to be made available, it is most likely that it would be aimed at promoting value for money or consistency between central Government and local authority initiatives. In short, it would be only practical assistance which would be helpful and sensible for local authorities to see. They would be required only to take it into account, and, having taken it into account, it would be for them to make up their minds on the matter.
These economic development powers will be helpful and of great benefit to local government, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: As my attempt to be helpful seems to have been somewhat rebuffed by English hon. Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

AMENDMENTS OF EXISTING POWER TO INCUR DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURE

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in page 36, line 11, leave out 'this section' and insert
'subsections (2) to (9) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 123, 245, 124 and 246.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The purpose of this series of amendments will be welcome. It is designed to remove an anomaly which came to light as a result of the tragic events at Lockerbie last December. Obviously, tribute has been paid to the magnificent efforts of local authorities, especially but not exclusively the authorities most directly involved.
As part of the wider response, local authorities in England and Wales wish to contribute to the disaster fund that was set up by Dumfries and Galloway regional council, but it was found that the power which local authorities in England and Wales would normally use to make such a contribution—section 137(3) of the Local Government Act 1972—did not extend to cover appeals set up by Scottish local authorities unless the civic head of an English or Welsh authority was associated with the appeal.
The series of amendments rectifies that situation on both sides of the border reciprocally. The effect is that where the civic head of a local authority launches an appeal, any local authority will be able to contribute.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friends and I welcome this series of amendments, which will prove extremely useful. I am sure that Scottish local authorities will now wish to contribute towards the Hillsborough fund in the same way that English local authorities wish to contribute to the Lockerbie appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 123, in line 44, at end insert 'and
(c) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added "or by such a person or body as is referred to in section 83(3)(c) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act I 973".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 37, leave out lines 28 to 43.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 8 in page 37, leave out lines 44 to 48.
No. 282, in Schedule 2, page 139, leave out lines 1 to 21.

Sir George Young: These three amendments which stand in my name enable the House to consider a matter on which the Committee was unable to reach a decision without the casting vote of the Chairman. They deal with the important matter of how voluntary organisations of the metropolitan counties are funded. In a nutshell, the Government wish to remove the section 48 funding power introduced in the Local Government Act 1985.
There are two arguments against what the Government plan to do, one of principle and one of practice. The argument of principle is that it is seen to be in conflict with undertakings given in good faith at the time of abolition which set up a secure funding framework for voluntary organisations in metropolitan counties which covered more than one local authority area.
The argument of practice against what the Government plan to do is that at a time when we are trying to reduce manning in local authorities, the arrangements proposed by the Government would increase manpower in those local authorities that have to scrutinise the voluntary sector and would involve the complex relationships that exist between local authorities as they try to justify their spending under section 137.
The Government argued that abolition of domestic rates gave an opportunity to abolish section 48 and bring the mets into line. They undertook to discuss with the local authorities the practical difficulties that we came across in Committee. In fairness to the Government, they have held discussions with representatives of the voluntary sector to try to find a way through the problem.
Having seen the minutes of those meetings, I remain convinced that it would be right for the Government to abandon the strategy on which they are embarked and to leave section 48 alone as a separate funding power in its own right for the voluntary sector and the metropolitan counties. It would reassure the voluntary sector, which has now established a funding arrangement under the new regime, if the Government said that, on reflection, their strategy is not, perhaps, the best one and that it would be better to leave section 48 as it stands.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government have given careful consideration to the points raised in Committee, especially those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). As he said, section 48 was introduced to help voluntary organisations after the


abolition of the GLC. Many voluntary organisations were performing an excellent function and it was thought right that they should receive assistance, especially as they were losing the product of the 2p rate from one tier of local authority.
We have now carried out a complete review of the limit on expenditure under section 137. We intend to ensure that spending for which there is no other statutory basis should be achieved on a different assumption—that it should be £5 per head of the adult population. There was great debate in Committee about how the section 137 proposals would work in with the section 48 scheme. There was an anomaly at the time of the abolition of the GLC and in the context of the new regime it was difficult to justify extending the arrangement.
We shall accept my hon. Friend's amendments. We have reconsidered our proposals and agreed upon a better basis. Clause 29(9) is directed at redressing the anomaly. It is a precise provision that states clearly that any expenditure under a section 48 scheme that cannot be attributed to a specific power is to be counted against the section 137 limits of the constituent councils.
As my hon. Friend said, it would impose an unnecessary burden on the schemes if it had to be assessed whether each grant could be justified under powers other than under section 137. It was argued that it would make the construction of the budget—especially in London, with 33 authorities involved—extremely difficult if each had to consider not only the cash required but the impact of individual grants on their own programmes.
As a result of meetings with the staff of the London section 48 scheme and the lead authorities of other schemes, we decided to reconsider the matter. We propose to build on the fact that the section 48 schemes have now settled into fairly regular patterns of spending. My hon. Friend's amendment will remove the special treatment of section 48 expenditure that cannot be referred to any specific power of the authorities. Instead, we shall reduce the limit on expenditure under section 137 for the constituent authorities of the section 48 schemes by an amount approximately equal to their expenditure under section 48, and which, elsewhere in the country, would have to score against the section 137 limit.
We want to discuss further with the authorities concerned the precise amounts involved. We believe that section 48 expenditure—which has made an important contribution to voluntary organisations in the London and other metropolitan areas—as well as the possibility of section 137 expenditure will be safeguarded.

Mr. Soley: We are always grateful for small mercies. It took a near defeat for the Government in Committee to make them reconsider the matter. Indeed, it was only the Chair's casting vote that saved them.
It should be put on the record that not only the former GLC area is affected, but metropolitan areas generally. Indeed, in Committee on the abolition Bill we warned the Government that the voluntary sector would be in some difficulty. The voluntary bodies have been worried and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has done them a service. However, I do not think that the amendment goes far enough and if the Government are serious about helping the voluntary sector they will have to go further.

Sir George Young: I was delighted to hear what my hon. Friend said. I know that her words will be welcomed by the voluntary organisations in London and in the other metropolitan counties. Nine minutes past 12 is not the time to engage in a detailed discussion about how the reduction in section 137 will take place. However, I note that she has undertaken to negotiate with the people concerned.
It is right to pay tribute to the work of Ministers, whose commitment to the voluntary sector has never been in doubt. I welcome the fact that they have shown flexibility —which I always knew was there—in coming to the decision to leave section 48 as a funding power in its own right.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 37, leave out lines 44 to 48.

No. 245, in page 37, line 48, at end insert—
'(10) In section 83(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (contributions permitted to charitable and public service funds etc.), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added "or by such person or body as is referred to in section 137(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 1972".'.—[Mr.Gummer.]

Schedule 2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972, SECTION 137, AS AMENDED

Amendments made: No. 124, in page 137, line 45, at end insert
'or by such a person or body as is referred to in section 83(3)(c) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973'.

No. 282, in page 139, leave out lines 1 to 21.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 31

APPLICATION OF PART IV

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 40, leave out line 21.

Clause 33

EXPENDITURE TO BE CHARGED TO REVENUE ACCOUNT

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 42, line 5, at end insert
'and the reference in subsection (5) below to expenditure incurred by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with this subsection'.
No. 89, in page 42, line 11, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this section or the following provisions of this Part shall permit an authority to charge to a revenue account which they are required to keep by virtue of Part VI or any other enactment any expenditure incurred by a local authority which could not otherwise be so charged.'.[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 34

EXPENDITURE EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 33(I)

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 43, line 8, at end add—
'(5) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) above, expenditure of any description is excluded from the obligation in section 33(1) above, it shall also be excluded from any requirement arising under any enactment (including an enactment in Part VI of this Act) under which the expenditure is required to be charged to a revenue account or any particular revenue account; but if—



(a) an authority decide that expenditure of that description should be charged to a revenue account as mentioned in subsection (1) above, and
(b) under any such requirement that expenditure (apart from this subsection) would have to be charged to a particular revenue account,

that expenditure may be charged only to that revenue account.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 40

CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 48, line 20, leave out from 'made' to 'the' in line 22 and insert—

'(a) on the assumption that the option will be exercised or, if the option could be exercised in different ways, on the assumption that it will be exercised in each of those ways, and
(b) on the assumption that the option will not be exercised, and if, on any of those assumptions'. —[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 41

INITIAL AND SUBSEQUENT COST OF CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 49, line 22, at end add—
`(5) In the application of this section to a credit arrangement which consists, in whole or in part, of a contract, the consideration under which falls within subsection (7) of section 40 above,—

(a) if the credit arrangement exists only on the basis of one of the assumptions in that subsection, the local authority shall make that assumption for the purposes of this section; and
(b) if the credit arrangement would exist on the basis of any two or more of those assumptions, the authority shall for the purposes of this section make whichever of those assumptions seems to them most likely.'. —[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 42

LIMITS ON POWERS TO ENTER INTO CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 49, line 42, leave out `charged to' and insert 'set aside from'.

No. 93, in page 49, line 45, leave out 'charge' and insert `set aside'—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 43

VARIATION OF CREDIT ARRANGEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 50, line 13, at end insert—
'(1A) If, in the case of a credit arrangement falling within subsection (5) of section 41 above,—

(a) the option in question is exercised in a way different from that which was assumed for the purposes of that section, or
(b) it was assumed for the purposes of that section that the option in question would not be exercised but it is in fact exercised,

the exercise of the option shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as a variation of the terms of the credit arrangement; and if, in such a case, it was assumed for the purposes of section 41 above that the option would be exercised (or would be exercised in a particular way) and it subsequently appears to the local authority that it will not in fact be exercised, the option shall be assumed to have been abandoned and that abandonment shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as a variation of the terms of the credit arrangement.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 45

BASIC CREDIT APPROVALS

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 52, line 27, after 'shall', insert
'after consultation with the local authority associations'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 170, in clause 47, page 53, line 25, leave out from 'Minister' to end of line 27 and insert
'shall consult the local authority associations on factors to be taken into account'.

Mr. Banks: Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 relate to clauses 45 and 47, which set out the method of controlling local government capital expenditure. Clause 45 states that the Secretary of State shall, before the beginning of each financial year, issue each local authority with a notice setting out a credit approval; that is how much it can borrow by various methods. It states that not only the total amount should be specified, but subsection (4) describes the period over which the various loans must be made.
I am seeking try to infuse into the proposals a little consultation, which the Secretary of State should have with the local authorities, which are so dramatically affected by the proposals. We find it extraordinary that the Secretary of State should consider setting out all the financial expenditure of a local authority without consulting the local authority associations.
Those matters were raised in Committee and we were hoping—indeed, we were expecting—an amendment very much like our own from the Government. In Committee we were led to believe that the Secretary of State would welcome an amendment along those lines, and the Minister for Local Government said so in the course of debate on 6 April 1989 which is reported in columns 696 to 698 of the Official Report. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the form of words enshrined in the amendments, will he tell us what form of consultation his proposals will take?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has put forward a reasonable case for the circumstances outlined. The problem is that we are discussing a range of matters and it would be difficult to consider that it would be sensible to discuss such matters in general as they must be discussed individually.
My officials often discuss with the local authority associations the methodology of distributing housing investment programme and other services block capital allocations. Indeed, the latter are usually distributed on the basis of recommendations made by the local authority associations. There has also been extensive consultation with the local authority associations on the new system of capital finance. We shall, of course, be continuing this detailed consultation, although I hope that, in future, the working papers will not be referred to as "leaks". In particular, we shall be inviting comments on the regulations to be made under this part of the Bill. But on our past performance no one could doubt our willingness to listen to the views of the local authority associations as that is crucial to what we are doing.
Although a local authority will receive one basic credit approval, that approval will cover several services. It will


be compiled from annual capital guidelines for each of those services. So it would not be very productive to hold formal discussions on the total level of basic credit approvals. Discussions should focus on the service by service annual capital guidelines which will be the building blocks of the structure. The best course for representations about credit approvals ought to be to Ministers and officials of the relevant service Department. That is what we seek to do.
There are, and will be, many opportunities open to local authority associations wishing to discuss the size of credit approvals with the appropriate service Departments. Obviously procedures vary from Department to Department, but representations can be made at both ministerial and official level. My colleagues and I will be willing to discuss the volume and methodology for distributing credit approvals with representatives of the associations either in a body such as the Housing Consultative Council or in a meeting specially convened for the purpose.
I am happy to give all those undertakings to the House. It is better to do that than to do so within the terms of a narrow amendment. I am not seeking for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw or not to press his amendments in order to avoid the type of consultations that I have mentioned. The opposite is true: I want them to continue on the broadest possible front. I do not believe that there is any doubt that the local authority associations would believe that we have not sought, and will not continue to seek, discussions and consultations on such matters. Those associations do not always agree with what we have decided, or agree among themselves about what we should have decided. Such is the nature of those discussions.
I hope that, given my undertakings, the hon. Gentleman will find it possible to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about being prepared to listen, but the point is whether any action follows, otherwise one is asking local authorities to participate in a facade of consultations. Consultations must mean that there is the real possibility that Ministers and the officials on the other side of the table are open to persuasion.
What bothers me is that we are talking about a multitude of Departments and I am rather concerned about co-ordination between those Departments if the expenditure cannot be discussed and decided upon in one go. However, having entered those caveats and in view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47

CRITERIA FOR ISSUING CREDIT APPROVALS

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in page 53, line 36, leave out from 'received' to end of line 38.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 172, in page 53, line 40, leave out 'or likely to be received'.

Mr. Banks: Clause 47 sets out the criteria that the Secretary of State shall use when fixing total credit approvals for local authorities. The clause sets out two things to which the Secretary of State should have regard and among other factors they are
any grants or contributions which it appears to him that the authority concerned have received and are likely to receive
within the year and any capital receipts that the local authority has received or is likely to receive within the year.
The amendments seek to remove from those factors capital receipts as one of the things that the Secretary of State shall take into account when fixing total credit approvals.
I move the amendments more in hope than in expectation.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point when he rightly suggests that it is not easy to take into account future receipts and that that is what he wants to restrict.
It is important to reconsider the example I gave in Committee. When an authority has completed the sale of its housing stock and is about to receive the proceeds of the sale and those proceeds greatly exceed the authority's capital programme for several years to come, it would be ridiculous for us to have to ignore that information simply because the totality of the proceeds had not yet reached that authority, but was about to reach it.
One of the purposes is to ensure that we are able to give more capital allocations in accordance with need. Under the present system we are tied to giving capital allocations where there are considerable receipts in any case and people have considerable opportunities to spend. Then, in addition, they get capital allocations, which reduces those available for local authorities in much greater need.
I do not think there is any difference between the two sides of the House on what we are trying to do here. It would be wrong to restrict the Secretary of State's ability to take into account such future receipts as I have indicated. I accept that it is not an easy matter. We shall handle it with very considerable care. We have not yet decided exactly how best to do it, but the case I have quoted is very much the kind of case that we have in mind. There is nothing secret or special behind this proposal. It is merely that we shall be able to have more capital allocations available for those whose needs are not met by their ability to spend from their own capital receipts.

Mr. Banks: A number of problems still arise even given what the Minister has said. Although one can misunderstand what can be read between the lines, perhaps the Minister shares some of my unease about this aspect of the Bill, in particular with regard to how he proposes to find out what future capital receipts a local authority may have and how he proposes to estimate what they might be. There is the matter of the prospects for interest rates. It will be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to say for sure how interest rates will move.
I know that there will be continuing discussions with local authorities and, that being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49

CAPITAL RECEIPTS

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 55, line 5, after 'if', insert
'at the time of disposal'.
No. 224, in page 55, line 25, at end insert
'but, in the case of a disposal made before that date, the reference in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above to the time of the disposal shall be construed as a reference to 1st April 1990'.
No. 96, in page 55, line 26, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3B) below'.
No. 97, in page 55, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'sums' in line 32 and insert
'are represented in the authority's accounts for the financial year ending immediately before that date either by amounts shown as capital receipts which are unapplied as at the end of that year or by amounts included in the balance as at the end of that year of any fund established by the authority under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972, those'.
No. 98, in page 55, line 35, at end insert—
'(3A) So far as may be necessary for the purposes of this Part, a local authority shall identify which (if any) sums falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) above are represented by amounts included as mentioned in that subsection in the balance of a fund established as so mentioned.
(3B) Subsection (3) above does not apply to a sum in respect of which an amount shown as an unapplied capital receipt or included in a balance as mentioned in that subsection is, on 1st April 1990, held in an investment which is not on that date an approved investment; and, so far as may be necessary for the purposes of this Part, where on that date a local authority hold investments which are not then approved investments, the authority shall identify which (if any) of the amounts so shown or included are to be treated as held in such investments.'.
No. 117, in page 55, line 48, leave out 'seven days' and insert 'three months'.— [Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 50

THE RESERVED PART OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in page 56, line 24, leave out '75' and insert '20'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 210, in page 56, line 24, leave out '75' and insert '10'.
No. 179, in page 56, line 25, leave out '50' and insert '20'
No. 211, in page 56, line 25, leave out '50' and insert '5'.
No. 180, in page 56, line 32, leave out '100' and insert '20'.

Mr. Banks: These amendments relate to one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill, which sets out how the local authority must use its capital receipts, from both the disposal of housing stock and the sale of land.
In the past, as we know, local authorities have been able to use 20 per cent. of the capital receipts for capital works and the remainder for non-prescribed expenditure, or alternatively to use a further 20 per cent. of the remainder in subsequent years towards further prescribed expenditure. It is now proposed that only 25 per cent. of capital receipts from the sale of housing can be used and only 50 per cent. of capital receipts from the sale of land, while the remainder, now called the reserved part, must be applied against debt.
These amendments, which are a mixture of SLD and Labour amendments, seek to look once again at how much should constitute the reserved part and how much freedom the local authority should have in disposing of capital receipts that have come from the sale of what are, after all, assets accumulated by the historic effort of local authorities over many years.
It is the local authority with a mandate from the local people that decides to build houses or acquire land and it is quite absurd that the disposal of those same assets, whether voluntary or forced, should not leave the local authority the freedom to decide what next to do with its own assets.
The Government argue that local authority debt is massive and needs to be controlled, but I remind the Minister that as a proportion of the gross domestic product local authority borrowing fell from 1·4 per cent. in 1980–81 to 1 per cent. in 1985–86 and over the same period long-term local authority debt as a proportion of GDP fell from 15 per cent. to 13 per cent. Loans outstanding as a proportion of gross annual revenue expenditure fell from 135 per cent. in 1980–81 to 117 per cent. in 1986–87. The Government need to bear in mind that in reducing the part of the capital receipts available for use they are reducing the incentive to local authorities to dispose of their assets, and that is obviously contrary to the Government's intentions.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), made a number of statements in Committee. In particular, he said:
We have made it clear that we wish to provide exemptions from in-and-out transactions, which exist in the present system, and we need the regulation-making power to do so.
I hope that the Minister will be a little more clear about that. He undertook to consider whether an amendment would be an appropriate way of achieving that rather than the sweeping powers that he confers upon himself in clause 50(3), (4) and (5). Has he further considered that point? If so, what are his conclusions?
Secondly, the position of a local authority that has no debt is still open to speculation. In Committee the Minister said:
I accept that we have to consider what might happen when an authority has no debt … We are considering that matter carefully … We have not ruled out further amendments which would provide alternative solutions." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 April 1989, c. 737–8.]
It is absurd to suggest that a local authority that has no debt must still be forced to set aside 75 per cent. of its capital receipts for future debt which becomes less and less likely to be incurred as its capital receipts accumulate because it is not allowed to use them. What does the Minister for Local Government intend to do about that?
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment also gave an undertaking in the same debate in Committee that he would shortly list the capital receipts that would be exempt from the new rules. Can he now honour that undertaking, and, if not now, when will he be in a position to do so?
Opposition to clause 50 is strong. If a local authority is elected with a mandate to build houses, to modernise its school and to build homes for the elderly, and has the means to do so from its own resources, it is abhorrent that the Government should take it upon themselves to override that mandate and say that the local authority cannot use the resources that it has conscientiously built


up over the years to meet those promises. Clearly, the abolition of local government is not far off and one of the accusations that we have levelled against the Government is that they are completely undermining the process of local accountability.
When the European Parliament threatens to overrule the Government, even on such a minor matter as to whether there should be a health warning on the front rather than the side of a cigarette packet, the Government's reaction is one of outrage. They are up in arms threatening a constitutional crisis. But on this important matter—the use of capital receipts for essential projects—the Government seem willing to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people. I hope that the Minister for Local Government will address himself to those points.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister is eager to respond and I shall not delay him long. I support the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The main difference between the amendments is that ours are more radical in giving local authorities greater freedom to respond to the needs of local people.
The point that I want to reinforce is that there is surely an economic absurdity in the Government's eyes in enforcing the repayment of debt. In many cases local authorities are paying fixed rates of interest as low as 6 per cent. Surely Ministers can see that it is madness to replace low interest bearing debts with higher interest rates which have resulted from the Chancellor, with the Prime Minister's help, messing up the national economy. They now seem to want to transfer those high interest rates, which we have as a result of the difficulties that the Government have got into nationally, to local authorities, quite needlessly, to the detriment of local people and local authorities.
Our amendments, the most radical put forward here tonight, are a way of meeting the requirements of local authorities. I do not accept the Minister's view that they undermine the national economy. It is crucial that such amendments are passed if local authorities are to start to tackle the real problems on a range of issues that they face within their local communities. I could outline them, but I suspect that at this time of night right hon. and hon, Members will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to do so. Nevertheless, the amendments are important.

Mr. Gummer: There has been, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, a clear need to control the total amount of public sector capital expenditure. There is certainly a difference of opinion between the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Neither is very near to power, but the hon. Member for Truro is much further away from it, and therefore is at liberty to make proposals that no Government could possibly adopt.
To do as the hon. Member for Truro suggests is to say that those authorities that happen to have considerable capital receipts for all kinds of historical reasons will do all the capital spending—because as they undertake that expenditure, the only way to keep the generality of public sector spending under control is to reduce the allocations that the Government make to those authorities without any capital receipts. The hon. Gentleman's recipe is just a

more extreme version of that presented by the Labour party. Both would mean that the very authorities having the greatest needs and the smallest chance of capital receipts would pay the cost. They are the authorities—often elected on precisely the mandate described by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—that often depend more on central Government allocations for capital spending because, while they have no resources themselves, their needs are considerable.
The purpose of the changes we are making is to ensure that it will be easier to give to local authorities in greatest need allocations to spend on the capital projects that they must undertake. Until now, allocations have been continuously eroded because of the considerable latitude available to local authorities able to realise assets and having a considerable amount in the bank—either as a consequence of cascading or because of the value of assets they sold in any one year. They were able to spend so much that every year the Government were compelled to reduce the allocations available to others.
The odd point about the proposals of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is that they would hit local authorities exactly like his own. The authorities that ought to be most concerned are those having large historical assets and whose allocations are restricted so that authorities in greater need may be helped. That is a much fairer system.
As to paying off debt, the hon. Member for Truro could not have studied my detailed comments. I made it clear again and again that no one is being forced to pay off advantageous loans of the 6 per cent. variety. But where local authorities realise capital, they must apply a substantial part of the resources thus realised to debt repayment—either by discharging such debts or by establishing a fund as a contra to them. Provided that local authorities build up such a fund and use the interest from it for other purposes, they do not have to pay off advantageous debts. However, they must not spend that money a second time without making provision to repay any debts already incurred.
When the hon. Member for Newham, North-West says that local government debt is not very great as a proportion of the gross national product, of course it is convenient to use those figures today because the GNP has grown so fast under this Government. It is an interesting way of using the success of the Government's economic policy as part of the judgment.
If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West had his way, the allocations to other authorities would be reduced. Many of the resources released in the way which he describes are not 100 per cent. local authority resources. Many of them have, in the past, been provided by the general taxpayer, by Government grants and the like. I have no intention of taking away those resources. I am merely saying that it is unacceptable to distort the system of the provision of capital allocations and the Government's responsibility to help local authorities with real needs by giving capital allocations. The balance that we are trying to present should help the very authorities that Opposition Members are supposed to support. Therefore, I find their amendments surprising. If the House were to pass them, it would do great harm to the very authorities which they are often most concerned to defend.

Mr. Allan McKay: I have given due consideration to the Minister's argument, but what then of the Government's promise, when they decided to sell council houses, that local authorities would be able to use their old receipts to replace the council houses which had been sold? What about the Government's promises in relation to the homeless and those who are now on extended waiting lists? What about the local authorities which always charged an economic rent and did not take anything from the rate fund? Will not the Government's proposed system take from the pockets of those local authorities the assets for which they paid over many years?

Mr. Gummer: None of the hon. Gentleman's comments accords with the facts. It is already true that, over the years, local authorities have been able to spend a high proportion of those assets and have spent many more millions of pounds than the assets referred to when the original statement was made by Lord Joseph. Much more than was promised has already been spent. There is no argument and the hon. Gentleman knows that.
In addition, there is no argument to suggest that those assets are being taken away from anyone. What is being said is that where debts have been incurred, and the assets on which they were incurred have been sold, at least part of the assets released should go towards the redemption of the debt. Otherwise, it would be as though someone who borrowed £8,000 for a car and then sold it said that he had £7,000 to spend. He would not because first he would have to repay the debt. We must acknowledge that it is the double spending of many of these assets which has harmed us so much.
Under the present system, the very local authorities with the needs of which Opposition Members speak are often not the ones with the assets to meet those needs. If we are to provide that money, the best way to do so is to ensure that we have greater freedom to allocate capital expenditure, which is what we are trying to do.
What the Opposition propose would do great harm to those very authorities which are most in need, which is why we are trying to change the system. Most people, other than those who are purblind, agree with what we are trying to do and believe it to be fair. That explains why the Association of Municipal Authorities has been so quiet and has not supported some of the proposals put forward by the Opposition today.

Mr. Tony Banks: I find it difficult to accept what the Minister says. He comes here in his saintly role and tries to suggest that he is doing the local authorities a great favour. It is difficult to find any local authorities which agree with him. I do not know to which local authorities he is dispensing his favours. I cannot find any: there are certainly none in the London Boroughs Association or the Association of London Authorities, and I am talking about Conservative, Liberal and Labour authorities in London. I am sure that the same is true of other authorities. No one seems to want his help and, therefore, I can only assume that he does not realise that his suggestion is totally unacceptable to local authorities of all political complexions.
As far as I can see, this is a final perpetration of the fraud carried out against local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley and Penistone (Mr. McKay) mentioned the understanding on which local authorities

were made to sell council houses: that all the capital receipts would be used to build new homes. That gave the idea considerable appeal for a number of authorities, but it has been gradually whittled away. Authorities are now being told that, notwithstanding any needs that they may have, they will have to use 75 per cent. of receipts for the realising of debt, without regard to their assets.
I should like the Minister to give an undertaking that he will consider the assets of each local authority against its debts. I am convinced that most if not all authorities could cover their existing debts through the value of the assets that they still hold. That seems a fairly straightforward economic proposal, which even the Minister and his hon. Friends should be able to grasp—even at this late hour.
The Minister talks about a local authority being forced to sell its own property, and then—in his words—being allowed to spend the money a second time. A council building new structures is not spending in the crude sense, but reinvesting. Against that spend comes a realisable asset.
I am not at all happy with what the Minister has said. No local authority of which I know offhand will be prepared to take the poisoned chalice that he is offering in his saintly role this evening. However, I shall not press the amendment.

Mr. Soames: Why not?

Mr. Banks: Do not push me.
I am sure that we shall find other occasions on which to return to this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52

CAPITAL RECEIPTS NOT WHOLLY IN MONEY PAID TO THE AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 59, line 14, leave out 'a sum' and insert 'an amount'.

No. 68, in page 59, line 17, leave out 'sum' and insert 'amount'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 53

AGGREGATE CREDIT LIMIT

Amendment proposed: No. 174, in page 60, line 5. leave out
'the first six months of'.—[Mr. Tony Banks.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Clause 54

DUTY TO SET CERTAIN SUMS ASIDE AS PROVISION TO MEET CREDIT LIABILITIES

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 60, line 39, leave out 'sum' and insert 'amount'.
No. 70, in line 43, leave out 'a sum' and insert 'an amount'.
No. 71, in line 48, leave out 'set that payment aside' and insert
'at the time the payment is received, set aside an amount equal to that payment'.
No. 72, in page 61, line 5, leave out 'set aside' and insert 'at the time'.
No. 73, in line 7, after 'payments', insert


'is received, set aside an amount equal to the payment'.
No. 74, in line 10, leave out 'that sum shall be set aside' and insert
'they shall, at the time the sum is received, set aside an amount equal to that sum'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 61, line 13, at end insert—
'(6) The calculation of the minimum revenue provision referred to in Part IV of Schedule 3 to this Act shall permit other proper practices to be used for the redemption of debt.
(7) A local authority shall determine its minimum revenue provision in accordance with proper practices and the duty to determine such provision shall be performed before the beginning of the financial year to which the provision is to relate.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to permit local authorities to determine the provision to be set aside from revenue accounts to meet credit liabilities, in accordance with proper practices, as alternatives to the "reducing balance" method specified in schedule 3. In Committee the Minister implied that the reducing balance method now proposed in place of the original proposal for equal instalments of principal was generally welcomed by local authorities. That is true, but only in the sense that it was marginally less bad than the original proposal.
The clause, as drafted, means that conflict is possible. The amendment is designed to resolve that conflict by allowing codes of practice to be on an equal footing with statute. In other words, it allows local authorities to calculate the minimum sum that they have to set aside to meet credit liabilities by reference to the rules set out in the schedule or any other set of proper practices at the discretion of the individual local authority.
Local authorities have traditionally been free to manage their debt in the way they felt best and to take advantage of opportunities that arise to minimise their overall payments. A code of guidance on the average maturity of debt has been agreed between local authorities and the Treasury and has proved useful in giving local authorities flexibility and in meeting the concerns of the Treasury. The Government's proposal to force councils to repay a specified percentage of their outstanding debt each year has no standing within the accountancy profession, and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has already expressed its doubts about the new scheme.
12.45 am
There are well-established alternative methods of repaying debt which are preferable to the Government's proposals on economic, efficiency and practical grounds. The sinking fund method is one example and annuity payments is another. No one with any real appreciation of the problems of debt management would have dreamt of imposing this system upon local authorities. It will start a random set of changes in local authority debt repayments which have no merit in themselves and cannot be justified on proper accounting grounds.

Mr. Gummer: There is obviously a fundamental difference between us on this matter. There are problems with some of the mechanisms of accounting for debt. If a local authority decides on some methods, there is little immediate impact on major borrowing decisions, whereas most of us agree that it is important to have at least an initial clear impact so that people can make a realistic decision as to whether they want to spend so much money through borrowing.
The advantage of the reducing balance method is that, first, it looks at the totality of an authority's debt and not bits of it—that is what the Government have to do when considering any of their major economic indicators in this way.
Secondly, under the reducing balance method, the marginal effect of new borrowing is felt more sharply at the time the decision is taken to borrow. That is surely sensible and prudent, not least because local authority debt is not like personal debt. When one borrows money, one knows that it must be paid back within one's lifetime and that one is going to pay it back. A local authority is not in that position. Those who make the decision know that when the burden of paying back is faced, they will not be around to carry the cost. The danger is that the council will pass on the burden of the decision to future generations, to a new set of electors and totally different people.
Thirdly, the needs assessments on which we base our grant to local authorities have always been based on the reducing balance method. That may well continue in the new system, both on housing subsidy and for needs assessments. It seems to me that if we are paying grant on the assumption that a minimum amount of provision for debt redemption is being made, that minimum provision should be made.
It seems reasonable to say that the only way to have a sensible policy of debt redemption is to have one that, first, looks at the whole of the authority's debt; secondly, bears in some way on those who immediately initiate the debt; and, thirdly, has some reference to the way in which the needs assessment for debt and for debt redemption are made. Those three factors lead me to believe that the reducing balance method is the best one.
This method has been widely welcomed. It has not been accepted in the curmudgeonly way that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) suggested. We have moved a long way to try to meet the requirements of local authorities, and many of them have recognised that. We do not want to return to a situation in which a local authority can choose a system which means that those who make the decision and benefit from the initial spending are not the people who feel the weight of the cost of the debt or make a substantial contribution towards completion of its redemption.

Mr. Murphy: The Minister is right when he says that there is a major difference between himself and us which is irreconcilable. I should like to ask him a question about the proposed method of providing for the cost of capital expenditure and whether it will increase the expenditure of some local authorities. Will he give the House an assurance that grant will be adjusted to avoid any of those additional costs falling on poll tax payers next year?

Mr. Gummer: Community charge payers next year will pay the costs that will arise from the arrangements that we come to with local authorities. We are discussing a number of matters, including the way in which we shall account for capital expenditure and its cost, but we have not yet reached a final decision.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING PART IV

Amendments made: No. 159, in page 139, line 49, leave out `(d)' and insert '(e)'.
No. 78, in page 140, line 43, leave out first 'sum' and insert 'amount'.
No. 79, in line 43, leave out second `sum' and insert `amount'.
No. 80, in line 46, leave out 'sum' and insert 'amount'.
No. 160, in page 141, line 3, at beginning insert—
'(1) Subject to any prescribed modifications'.
No. 161, in line 14, at end insert—
`(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'. No. 162, in line 27, at end insert—
'9A.—(1) At any time on or after 1st April 1990, a local authority's credit ceiling shall be determined, subject to any prescribed modifications, in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
No. 81, in line 37, leave out 'any sum' and insert 'an amount'.
No. 82, in line 39, leave out `sum' and insert `amount'.
No. 83, in line 40, after `paragraph', insert 'that ceiling'.
No. 84, in line 49, leave out `a sum' and insert 'an amount'.
No. 85, in page 142, line 2, leave out `a sum' and insert `an amount'.
No. 86, in line 4, leave out from `year' to end of line 9.
No. 118, in line 9, at end add—
'11A. —(1) If, at any time on or after 1st April 1990, any debt of a local authority is reduced or extinguished by virtue of such a payment as is referred to in section 134(1)(b) of this Act, the authority's credit ceiling shall at that time be reduced by an amount equal to the reduction in the debt or, as the case may be, to the amount of the extinguished debt (and, by virtue of this paragraph, the credit ceiling may, accordingly, be a negative amount).
(2) If, at any time on or after 1st April 1990, a local authority are required under section 134(7)(b) of this Act to repay or pay any sum to the Secretary of State, the authority's credit ceiling shall at the time that sum is repaid or paid be increased by an amount equal to that sum.'. —[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 55

USE OF SUMS SET ASIDE TO MEET CREDIT LIABILITIES

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 61, line 14, leave out
'Where a local authority set aside any sums'
and insert
`Amounts for the time being set aside by a local authority'.
No. 76, in page 61, line 16, leave out 'those sums'.
No. 77, in page 61, leave out lines 26 to 28. —[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 58

APPLICATION OF, AND ORDERS UNDER, PART V

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in page 64, line 20, at end insert—
`(3A) Nothing in this Part shall apply to a company in receipt of funds from the European Regional Development Fund on behalf of the relevant local authority'.
This is a very important amendment for many local authorities. Part V deals with companies in which local authorities have an interest. Many local authorities have been working hard to attract European regional

development fund assistance. The Government should place on record the practical implications of this part of the Bill in terms of European grant aid to Britain.
There is concern that ERDF moneys could be lost if the Government do not accept the need for joint ventures. ERDF requirements stipulate that in order to gain assistance the body should be a public authority, or should act as though it were a public authority. It excludes applications from individuals and private sector organisations. A minority interest is unlikely to be sufficient to satisfy European conditions of assistance because public money is not regarded as secure.
My authority, Wakefield, is involved in this exercise. If ERDF money is not made available to it, it could have traumatic consequences. The implications of the legislation affecting companies will force local authorities to relinquish control of or influence over a company when existing or future capital requirements take the authority beyond its stated control total. That will lead to a dilution of the public interest to 20 per cent. or less and therefore to a substantial reduction in local authority activity if provision is not made for ERDF money to be paid to companies over which local authorities exercise influence.
An example is the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. An example from the NEC agreement illustrates the point that I am making. Article 5 of that agreement states in paragraph (a) that until 1 July 2019
the Commission's approval shall be obtained before any application is made to the Treasury for consent to any new issue of shares in the NEC Ltd., or to any disposal of existing shares in NEC Ltd., to any person or body other than the Secretary of State or a local authority for the purpose of the Local Government Act 1972;
Paragraph (b) is extremely important. It states:
Birmingham City Council shall not, without the prior approval of the Commission, transfer any part of its share holding to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce;
Paragraph (c) states:
NEC Ltd., shall not, without prior approval of the Commission, dispose or offer to dispose of all or any of its interests in the Birmingham Convention Centre.
It is clear that if the Bill does not make provision to protect the payment of European regional development fund moneys to local authorities, local authorities could lose a great deal of support. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment extremely carefully.

Mr. Pike: If the Government do not accept the amendment, will the project being undertaken by Lancashire Enterprises in conjunction with Lancashire county council and the borough councils to revitalise the Leeds-Liverpool canal corridor be put in jeopardy? The project is bringing in considerable European funding and is vital to Lancashire.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend gives a further example of the importance of the amendment. I quoted the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. My hon. Friend has said what could happen in Lancashire and other colleagues could give further examples as to what could happen in their regions. The evidence before the House tonight makes it clear that the Government ought to give the amendment careful consideration. I urge the Government to accept the amendment in the best interests of local authorities throughout the regions as it will affect the economic wellbeing of local authorities.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In general terms, ERDF grants for infrastructure investments are intended to


support public-sector investments. In May 1987 the European Commission confirmed that local authority controlled companies were eligible for ERDF grants. In addition, the Commission confirmed that other companies would also be eligible if they had sufficiently close links with the public sector. The proposals in part V are precisely to provide a statutory framework for local authorities' interests in companies.
At present, when local authorities become involved in companies, all too often they are absolutely free of the statutory regulations governing financing propriety and accountability. When it comes to ERDF moneys in particular, it is difficult to argue that the relationship with the local authority should be anything other than extremely close.
The eligibility for ERDF grants of companies in which local authorities have interests stems from their links with the local authorities concerned.
The amendment seeks to ignore that and proposes that any company in receipt of an ERDF grant should be exempt from the provisions contained in part V of the Bill. That is quite unacceptable as a company could enjoy the benefit of grants payable to public sector bodies by virtue of its connections with local authorities but would not be subject to public sector disciplines. For example, a local authority could set up a company which it wholly owns to carry out an infrastructure project. The company could then claim ERDF grants for the project. Under the terms of amendment No. 288 that company would then be free to borrow unlimited amounts, possibly guaranteed by the local authority concerned and generally conduct its business in any manner it or, more appropriately, the local authority wished. I am afraid that the amendment would create a simple and obvious method for avoiding the controls that should properly be applied to local authority business. I hope that I have won the argument.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to two particular areas of concern. The position of the National Exhibition Centre is being considered carefully at the moment. The Lancashire Enterprise project, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, is not in any jeopardy. The amendment would seriously undermine what we are trying to achieve, and I strongly urge the House to reject it.

1 am

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister is trying to face both ways. She is saying—[Interruption.] I can understand that hon. Members do not believe that, but it is true. She is saying that local authorities that receive EC money and form companies should conform to Government disciplines. That can be achieved without the legislation we are considering. She referred also to the two examples that I gave and has admitted that they must be looked at in detail, because there are certain provisions that are relevant. Those examples are mirrored in local authorities throughout Britain.
The Minister should examine carefully the points she has made. What she has said does not ring true when one considers what is happening in local authorities. The Government should reconsider their proposal.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 59

COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ARM'S LENGTH COMPANIES

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 65, line 8, leave out
'by nominees of the local authority or'
and insert
'in any one or more of the following ways, namely, by the local authority, by nominees of the local authority and'.
No. 23, in page 65, line 12, leave out `either' and insert
`in any one or more of the following ways, namely, by the local authority'.
No. 24, in page 65, line 14, leave out 'or' and insert `and'.
No. 25, in page 65, line 19, leave out `applies' and insert
'and subsections (4) and (5) of that section as they have effect in relation to subsection (3) apply'.
No. 26, in page 65, line 34, leave out from 'to' to `applied' in line 36 and insert
`any financial year if, at a time before the beginning of that year, the authority resolved that the company should be an arm's length company and, at all times from the passing of that resolution up to the end of the financial year in question, the following conditions have'.
No. 27, in page 65, line 38, leave out `is' and insert `was'.
No. 28, in page 65, line 43, leave out `are' and insert `have been'.
No. 29, in page 66, line 16, at end insert
'for other than commercial reasons'.—[Mr. Gummer]

Clause 60

COMPANIES SUBJECT TO LOCAL AUTHORITY INFLUENCE

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in page 66, line 50, after `aggregate', insert
'within any period of twelve months'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 290, in page 67, line 1, after `made' insert
`that period of twelve months'.
No. 291, in page 67, line 4, after `guaranteed', insert
'in that period of twelve months'.
No. 292, in page 67, line 8, after 'owned', insert
'at any time within that period of twelve months'.

Mr. O'Brien: The four amendments all refer to the same principle. We request that after the word "aggregate", the words
within any period of twelve months
should be inserted. The purpose of the amendments is to fix a time limit for calculating business association when the local authority has made a grant or loan, or holds stocks or shares in a company. Amendment No. 289 is in line with the 12-month period specified in clause 60(3)(a), where the relationship of payment to turnover is defined.
Clause 26(3) specifically permits local authorities to invest in commercial, industrial or public undertakings and to acquire shares or loan capital in such companies. We consider that the private sector often wishes to see and values a degree of local authority involvement, especially because of the expertise that the local authority can offer.
I want to refer to the question of a company whose principal business is the disposal of waste. Obviously, local authorities, especially the metropolitan authorities, are involved in the question of waste disposal and the production of heat or electricity from waste.
We suggest that, where there is a particular involvement, the time limit for calculating business


association should be 12 months, as referred to in other parts of the Bill. Indeed, as was made clear in Committee, a significant amount of concern about that could be found among Conservative Back-Benchers. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to personal associations in local authorities and to local government influence.
There is a substantial need for the Government to consider the amendment and our suggestion that references to a six-month period should be amended to read "12-month period" in order to give local authorities better opportunities for accountancy in that area of business association.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is important to make a distinction between everyday transactions between local authorities and influence companies and capital grants. For everyday transactions, the test in clause 60(3)(a) is only satisfied within a perod of 12 months if such payments account for at least half the company's turnover. However, the test in clause 60(3)(c) relates specifically to a company's capital base and the proportion of that which has been supported by grants, loans or other forms of support from a local authority.
It would not be appropriate to qualify that to apply only to grants, etcetera, provided within a specific period as proposed in the amendments. The test must be an absolute one because a company that has relied on a local authority's support for at least half its capital base would almost certainly be subject to that authority's influence, irrespective of when the support was provided. When that is coupled with a 20 per cent. or higher personnel link, the company would undoubtedly be subject to the dominant influence of the authority.
I strongly urge the House to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 67, line 17, leave out
'or subject to the influence'.

No. 32, in page 67, line 34, leave out
'or subject to the influence'.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Bill, as amended, (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Broadcasting

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps I may anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I should have announced to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Was that the point of order?

Mr. Taylor: No, it is a different point of order. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that this is a desperately important proposal. May I appeal to the Government and ask them to consider whether it makes sense to debate at 1 o'clock in the morning the first-ever measure to give the non-elected Commission controls over British broadcasting? As it is such a desperately important issue, I appeal to the Government not to move the motion at this crazy hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5574/88 and the Supplemenary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 30th March 1989 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 7th June 1989 relating to broadcasting activities; and endorses the Government's view that since these provisions now follow closely those of the Council of Europe's Convention on Transfrontier Television, they should be welcomed as contributing to the reduction of barriers to trade and the maintenance of the internationally-held principles of free-flow of information.
Before going any further, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who I know will be speaking to the amendment, that one reason why we are debating the motion tonight is that the matter will be discussed at the Internal Market Council later today and it was thought appropriate that the House should have the opportunity to air its views on the draft directive before the Internal Market Council meets. I shall deal with that point at greater length in a moment.
Even at this late hour, it is a fortunate coincidence that we are debating the draft directive on what, for Hansard purposes at least, is the same day as that on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a range of exciting and far-reaching decisions that will affect British commercial television in the 1990s.
The same spirit of preparing in some measure for a new broadcasting world permeates the draft European Community directive that we are discussing. More and more television broadcasts in Europe will become transnational, on satellite or cable. They will stretch across borders and they will ignore frontiers. So there are needs for a minimal set of international rules in Europe on such matters as advertising and sponsorship to make certain that what one country is broadcasting does not cause offence or break all the traditions or standards of another country in Europe that is receiving that broadcast. It is against that background that I ask the House to examine the directive.
I am aware of the desire of the Select Committee on European Legislation to debate the matter and I am sorry if some hon. Members feel that the debate should have taken place earlier, although my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East suggested that it should have taken place at a later stage. The Government felt that it would be appropriate to await any possible changes to the Community's proposals which might be suggested by the European Parliament before arranging a debate so that such changes could be taken into account.
In the event, changes were suggested by the European Parliament following its second reading of the Community's proposals on 24 May, and this is the first opportunity that we have been able to find since then to hold the debate.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend explain to me, a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, why we could not debate this issue before a common position was adopted, despite the fact that a recommendation to that effect was put forward by the Select Committee in its report some time before a common position was arrived at?

Mr. Renton: I cannot add to what I said. We took the view that it was sensible, as the draft directive had been changed many times—there have been four explanatory memoranda from the Home Office to the Select Committee on European Legislation detailing the various changes that have been arrived at—that the debate should not take place until the European Parliament had had an opportunity to suggest any changes. Those were not made until 24 May, and this is the first opportunity since then, given the Whitsun break, to debate the matter.
I am pleased to tell the House that we have made substantial progress on this subject—

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Come off it.

Mr. Renton: There is no question of coming off it. I shall go in considerable detail into the matter and I suggest that my hon. Friend listens carefully to the details of the progress that we have made, on the basis of which we are now able to recommend the House to endorse the attitude to the directive as set forth in the motion.
We have made such progress that the Community proposals are now fundamentally different and much more acceptable than those which the House debated on 20 January 1987. At that time the Government and the House were concerned, and rightly so, over a draft directive which appeared to introduce more restrictions on free trade than it would have removed. It had been drafted in such a way that it would have created more obstacles to the free flow of television programmes than it would have eliminated.
We had, for example, serious reservations about the Commission's approach on copyright, which depended ultimately on the imposition of a statutory licence. Nor did we believe that there was a case for fixed numerical quotas imposed on everyone from Brussels. Rather than the establishment of general principles to provide flexible regulation to meet the domestic needs of individual countries, the draft directive then contained such a fine level of detail that it was likely to lead to more rather than less restriction.
On that basis we were attracted to the idea of regulating European broadcasting by a Council of Europe instrument. At the Vienna conference of broadcasting Ministers in 1986, we were instrumental in securing agreement for the preparation of a Council of Europe convention on transfrontier broadcasting. We regarded the Council of Europe as a more appropriate forum for regulating these matters because its approach is more flexible and because it provides a much larger grouping of European states, 22 countries rather than the 12 represented by the Community. As the House knows, our emphasis was on the Council of Europe convention. Thereafter, in late 1987 and throughout 1988 and 1989 it has made significantly speedier progress than the directive.
At the Council of Europe conference of broadcasting Ministers in Stockholm last November, which I had the great pleasure to attend, it was clear that there was a collective political will to reach agreement on the outstanding points in the convention as quickly as possible. It also marked, and I emphasise this, a major turning point on the draft directive. Once the final shape of the convention became clear, we devoted much effort to securing amendments to the draft directive to bring it into line with the convention. Our approach was supported by the conclusion of the European Council in Rhodes last December that the future work of the Community in relation to broadcasting should be based on that of the Council of Europe and that the directive should be adopted in the light of that convention.
The agreement reached by the European Council was very satisfactory because it meant that, in general, the directive would follow closely the provisions of the convention. We had worked hard in negotiations on the convention to arrive at provisions that would not adversely affect United Kingdom broadcasting and advertising interests.
Those provisions substantially met all the points about which we had reservations in the draft directive—I shall list them later—and they were, therefore, in our judgment an acceptable basis for European legislation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have with me the Hansard for the debate on 20 January 1987, during which this very issue was discussed. The point made by the then Minister was that while the negotiations were taking place the Commission was bent on establishing competence in that area. He said that, despite the Commission's endeavour to take over the Council of Europe's proposals, it was a part of the argument that the Government would not fall for. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us why the Government fell for it?

Mr. Renton: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, he is trying to see booby traps and plots where none exist. He should be fair in his quotations. I shall quote remarks made by my predecessor in that debate. He said:
The fact of the matter is that Community competence exists."—[Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 843.]
The fact that the Community has competence in broadcasting has been argued not only by the Commission a great many times, but it has been upheld in the European Court on a number of occasions.

Mr. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall give way to my hon. Friend for the last time. He will have his opportunity to make his points.

Mr. Taylor: During the debate on 20 January 1987, the then Minister was asked whether the Government's view was that the Community should have competence in this issue, to which he replied "No".

Mr. Renton: I have just quoted what my predecessor said. The Government accept the fact that the Community has competence in the issue of broadcasting—

Mr. Taylor: No.

Mr. Renton: I must explain the present position to my hon. Friend. The court has decided on many occasions that broadcasting is to be regarded as an economic service under the terms of the treaty. That is the final state of play. We have consulted legal opinion, which has confirmed that view.
I assure my hon. Friend that, despite his concerns and echoing back to the debate of 1987, I can now recommend the draft text to the House because all the amendments to it that we have achieved mean that it sits closely alongside the Council of Europe's convention on transfrontier broadcasting—a convention that we have already signed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thought that it might be convenient to clear the legal matters before we go any further. Leaving aside the question of the scope of the Single European Act, and in this case article 57, the hon. Gentleman's memorandum dated 7 June, which he deposited in the Vote Office, tells us that the proposal is presently conceived under articles 57(2) and 66 of the treaty. Is there any likelihood of any change in that? The phraseology suggests that there could be, although I rather doubt it. Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he tell us whether there is likely to be a vote on this? It is awaiting qualified majority and he may know the likelihood of its passage?

Mr. Renton: I am not aware of any likelihood that the proposal will cease to rely on articles 57(2) and 66 of the treaty. The Commission's regular view has been that those were the articles on which they relied, and I am not aware of any view that that should be changed. I cannot advise him of whether there is likely to be a vote on this. I believe, however, that it will be discussed at the Internal Market Council today. Obviously, that is something that we shall watch with considerable interest.
We came to the conclusion that the decision made by the European Council in Rhodes was satisfactory because it meant that the directive would follow closely the provisions of the convention. We felt that those provisions substantially met all the points in the draft directive about which we had had reservations in the past.
It followed from that that this signalled the need for a different approach to the directive on our part. Given our acceptance of the provisions in the convention, it would have been unreasonable to argue that we could not support the same or similar provisions in the draft directive. That position has since been reinforced by our decision to sign the convention when it opened for signature on 5 May. Nine other member states of the Council of Europe joined us at that time in signing the convention, and I have no doubt that others will do so.
Before going on to comment specifically on the changes within the draft directive, I shall explain to the House why we considered it necessary to have some form of international regulation of broadcasting. That, of course, lies within the fact that until recently broadcasting has

been primarily a national industry, aimed predominantly at domestic audiences. However, it is clear that television will become an increasingly international medium as satellite broadcasting leaves its footprint throughout Europe. I have heard it forecast, for example, that within a few years about 200 international satellite television channels might be beamed down to the countries of Europe.
All countries have developed means of regulating their domestic broadcasting services over the past 50 years, and those new technological developments will make desirable a measure of international regulation—minimal, I accept. There is a need both to avoid any regulatory loophole that might otherwise develop and, more positively—for the sake of British industry interested in this market—to promote a pan-European market in broadcasting.
It was not in our view sensible or desirable for satellite or cable broadcasting to develop completely outside national or international regulatory controls. As a result of the fundamental changes made to the draft directive, we believe that we can withdraw our earlier objections to the substance of the directive.
I shall list those main changes. The proposal for a 60 per cent. quota of broadcasting time to be devoted to European Community work has been amended in two ways. First, the provision is now couched in terms that require broadcasters to devote "a majority proportion" of their transmission time to European works where it is practicable to do so. There is no longer, therefore, any fixed or legally binding numerical quota. Secondly, the definition of European works has been widened to embrace works coming from Community states, non-Community states that are party to the Council of Europe convention and from other European states that have concluded reciprocal agreements with the Community. That provision is now sufficiently flexible to be compatible with the existing requirement in the United Kingdom law that broadcasters should show a "proper proportion" of European Community material. Our broadcasters regularly show about 65 per cent. of EC material within the definition that will apply to EC programmes in the directive.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does that mean that if the United States signs the European convention, as it well may, its work will be classed as a European production?

Mr. Renton: There is a difference between the United States and non-Community states that are party to the Council of Europe convention. I have not heard any suggestion that the United States might sign the Council of Europe convention. It is an interesting thought, but it has not crossed my desk. Perhaps my hon. Friend will develop that idea in his speech.
The broadcasting services, such as satellite channels that depend on a substantial amount of programmes imported from the United States and elsewhere that would not find it practicable to devote the majority of their transmission time to European works, will not be impeded by the provisions. The House will be reassured, therefore, that the flexible nature of the provision will not threaten or prejudice the constitutional independence of British broadcasters. Freedom of choice will continue and there will be room for programmes from non-EC countries.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Renton: With respect, I have given way to my hon. Friend three times. Time is short and, given that his amendment has been selected, it would be better if he made his own speech.
The proposed 10 per cent. quota of works from independent producers can now be achieved either as 10 per cent. of programme budgets or as 10 per cent. of transmission time, on which member states can choose. This is less stringent than the 25 per cent. targets which the Government have already set the BBC and IBA in relation to independent productions.
The provisions on the duration and insertion of television advertising have been changed to reflect the corresponding provisions of the Council of Europe convention. Advertising is now limited to 15 per cent. of the daily transmission time, or 20 per cent. if it includes tele-shopping services. The amount of spot advertising within any given hour shall not exceed 20 per cent. Television advertising within the United Kingdom already falls comfortably within those limits.
Detailed rules are laid down for the time and frequency of advertising breaks. Some member states favoured grouping advertisements between programmes rather than inserting them in natural breaks. But thanks very largely to proposals we formulated and tabled, in particular on the need to retain natural-break advertising, we believe that we have secured provisions which will not adversely affect British broadcasting and advertising interests.
Although the draft directive continues to contain a ban on the advertising of all forms of tobacco products, this is in line with the corresponding provision in the Council of Europe convention which the Government accepted in order to secure agreement to the convention as a whole.
The requirement for a right of reply has been widened to refer to a right of reply "or equivalent remedies". That will enable us to continue to rely on the existing procedures operated in the United Kingdom through the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and we will not be required to introduce any further measures. The provisions on copyright have been withdrawn.
We are also satisfid that the provisions on the protection of minors, which are in themselves unexceptionable and indeed desirable, should not have undesirable consequences for Community competence in other sectors.
It is our view that the Commission's proposals now represent a satisfactory outcome. We have successfully resisted the arguments of some member states for protectionist measures which would have imposed greater restrictions on European broadcasters and, instead, we have achieved a substantial deregulatory text fully in line with that of the Council of Europe convention.
I stress, finally, that a prime objective in supporting the directive is to foster the free flow of television programmes throughout Europe. In that context, article 2 of the draft directive is in my opinion much the most important. I firmly believe that this will promote and encourage the growth of the broadcasting industry in the United Kingdom.
I do not need to remind the House about the approach of 1992. This will be an opportunity for all British interests—and broadcasting is no exception—to expand into the European market. The potential is enormous. The development of cable and satellite technologies that ignore frontiers has created opportunities for a new and expanding market.
There is already a large gap between the European demand for television programmes and their supply. In 1987 western Europe needed 125,000 hours of programming but produced only about a quarter of this itself. By 1990 western Europe will need at least 300,000 hours of programming. The balance of trade in this field is currently very much in the United States' favour. Europe is an importer of programmes and clearly more European co-operation and co-production in making programmes that are attractive to all the European market is necessary and will be helped by the abolition of trade barriers against the sales of such programmes that is implicit and explicit in the directive.
This is a formidable challenge for the British broadcasting industry but I believe that it is one that we are very well placed to meet, for British broadcasting already has a high reputation abroad. We have, as the House knows, the creative talent, the commercial enterprise and the production and distribution infrastructure to make the most of the expanding markets elsewhere, and the development of the independent production initiative in this country in recent years is an example of how we can take advantage of an opening in the market.
We should be in the vanguard to take advantage of these new opportunities throughout Europe in the broadcasting world to the benefit of broadcasters and viewers alike. It is on that basis and in expectation of our obtaining a wider share of this European market that I ask the House to endorse our view that the draft directive should now be welcomed.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I must confess to being a little puzzled by what I will describe as the Minister's muted euphoria over these proposals. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) reminded the House, in January 1987 the Minister's predecessor stood at the Dispatch Box questioning the need for a directive and indeed the competence of the Commission in this matter.
I have no doubt that some of his hon. Friends will quote from the advertisement in the Sunday papers which warns voters that if they do not do a certain thing on Thursday 15 June they will be living on a diet of Brussels. I do not want to make too much of this because the mere mention of the Euro elections pours salt into the grievous wounds of the differences between the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister and others over this Government's real attitude to the Community.
At the last debate—and the Minister knows this—virtually the whole House, not to mention the programme makers and the advertising industry, shared the view that a better way ahead lay with the Council of Europe, and that was indeed the view of the Opposition. As the Minister has confirmed, in essence what has happened is that the Commission has now decided to follow the Council of Europe, and generally, although with some reservations, that is welcomed, I believe.
I must state my reservations about the watering down of the original proposal arguing that 60 per cent. of broadcasting time should be devoted to works originating in the Community. That has changed in two ways, as the Select Committee on European Legislation helpfully


noted. The 60 per cent. has not merely become a majority proportion—which in plain English I take to mean at least 51 per cent.—but is hedged with a qualifying phrase—
where it is practicable to do so".
It is not within any time limit; it implies that this will go on for ever unless we are invited to consider another directive. I hope that the Minister will tell me what that means. I accept that some countries would find even that provision for a majority proportion difficult to move towards immediately. For example, I understand that in Greece and Portugal virtually all programmes during peak-time viewing are of American origin.
Would it not have been better to make exemptions for some stated period for such countries rather than to weaken the provision for those well able to cope? Do I take it from the Minister's remark that the current United Kingdom position of the use of about 65 per cent. of EEC originated material remains, in the Government's view, the one to which we should hold rather than the looser, weaker formula of a majority proportion?
My fears are these. Because of cross-considerations, the demands of advertisers and the need here to recoup as quickly as possible the cash laid out for a franchise, the pressure will be on the programme makers and programmers to cut costs. Unless we are careful, that can only mean more American-made programmes. Or, to put it another way in the words of the Home Secretary in an interview with Independent Radio News today, "more rubbish programmes". Those were the words that he used when discussing the announcement that he had made earlier in the day to the House. The absence of a binding numerical quota means that competition will not be so much on programme quality as on programme cost.
There are some other objections as well. There is no reference to the times at which the programmes are shown. I understand, but do not accept, that the Government want as light a regime as possible, nationally and within the EC. In the context of a majority proportion of European originated works, that could mean that some programmes are pushed, either mainly or wholly, into the off-peak, late-night hours.
In that context—it is interesting that the Minister made no reference to this—we should all be properly conscious that transfrontier broadcating should not squeeze out or threaten the rich and varied cultural backgrounds of the countries joined together in the Community. It is perfectly possible—I call the Prime Minister as witness—for individual nations to preserve their essential identity while willingly co-operating. National identity need not be sacrificed upon the altar of European co-operation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How can the hon. Gentleman talk of co-operation when the directive makes provision for the Commission to implement the majority, and when, in paragraph 3, there is legal provision in five years' time for any new percentage to be laid down by majority voting? There was certainly co-operation in the old Council of Europe directive, but this proposal is something quite different. It gives the Commission the power to implement whatever percentage is arrived at, and paragraph 3 makes it abundantly clear that whatever percentage is not appropriate can be changed.

Mr. Corbett: I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman's point. He will not thank me if I say that when we come nearer to the position that he mentioned in five

years' time, the Minister may be on the Opposition Benches and somebody else on the Government Front Bench.
I welcome the widening of the provision to embrace nations which have relationships with the Community. That is an important contribution to the growing interest in all European co-operation beyond the boundaries of the present Community and in the interests of what President Gorbachev has called "our common European home".
I have doubts about the 10 per cent. quota for works from independent producers being tied to either a choice of transmission time or programming budgets. There is the risk that all the independents will be allowed to do is the cheap game show, late-night, nodding heads type of programme with whatever high-cost, often high-quality, drama or current affairs is done, left exclusively in house. I welcome the higher targets for independent productions, and I assume that the Government have no intention of seeking to reduce them.
We are used to joint funding of programmes by British and American interests. I welcome the growing co-operation with German and French co-sponsors in particular and hope that we shall see more. That can only help to protect and promote national and Community programme co-sponsorship—the better to resist the American invasion. Perhaps the Minister can say whether American companies will be tempted to establish production facilities in Britain or elsewhere in the Community to get around the majority proportion rule. If the Americans make such an attempt, will they be permitted to succeed?
Some may view the provisions as restricting the free flow of broadcasting across frontiers, but that need not happen. But in the wake of developing technology we must ensure that nothing destroys the best that British broadcasting and that of other countries has achieved. We must never risk the single European market offering only a choice of soaps or game shows made in Britain, France, Germany or Italy. That does not represent real programme diversity, quality or variety. We want proper choice, not just more of the same.
I regret that provisions for a right of reply were dropped, and the Minister knows that I do not accept that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission represents a serious alternative. But that matter will have to wait.
Article 8 deals with television advertising and rightly proscribes any that discriminates on the grounds of race, sex or nationality. That is important, and should give another push to progress made in this country and elsewhere in ending sexual and racial stereotyping. It may be a laughing matter to some people, but it is hurtful and offensive to those who are its targets.
I particularly welcome the provisions in article 8 for ensuring that television advertising will not encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety or to the protection of the environment. The latter is a welcome addition and properly recognises growing concern in this country and in others about the need to stop and to reverse pollution and destruction. There is every reason why responsible advertisers, using the most powerful medium, should be part of that process.
The Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members may have noted the recent Mintel survey reported in the Daily Mail today. The report stated:
The vast majority of shoppers are willing to pay up to 10p in the pound extra for products which do no harm to the


environment … Seventy-seven per cent. of shoppers will pay 5p to 10p in the pound extra for 'environmentally friendly' washing powder, falling only slightly to 72 per cent. for organic food and 66 per cent. for toiletries not tested on animals.
There is a powerful message in those results both for manufacturers and for advertisers.
I hope that the House will welcome the tight restrictions on alcohol advertising, which must not be aimed at minors, claim that it enhances physical performance, or give the impression that it aids social or sexual success. I say in all seriousness that the alcohol problem in Britain and in the rest of the Community affects far more people, across a much wider age range, than does the real menace of drugs—and it causes more social and economic damage. Alcohol abuse must be taken seriously, and the proposals help in that.
I hope that the Government will learn the lessons from sporting and other events in this country that attract young people. The Minister's predecessor was critical of the earlier draft's provisions for the protection of children. They are now covered by articles 12 and 14, and, although they represent the minimum, they are none the less welcome. Responsible advertisers—and it is manufacturers or service providers who must take proper responsibility—have nothing to fear from the provisions. In any event, it would be entirely wrong to allow them to stand aside. As we have seen with British newspapers, all too often it is one product—the example I have in mind is the sewer Sun—that inevitably drags down standards among its competitors.
The original copyright proposals were almost universally unacceptable. I regret the absence of new proposals, but we are better without what was originally on offer. This problem must be tackled. I hope that voluntary contractual agreements work, but I wonder whether the provision for arbitration will, perversely, discourage rather than encourage agreement, since it happens after retransmission. As the Minister has explained, the copyright proposals weaken the position of owners of rights, although the proposal seeks to preserve the present position for cable.
These proposals fit fairly comfortably alongside the Council of Europe's directive, but they are not the end of the matter. Experience will doubtless show that other provisions will have to be made. As I have said, we need proposals which will not impede the free flow of television across national boundaries but which, at the same time, do not impose what Jeremy Isaacs, when he headed Channel 4, called "Euro-puddings".
Individual, national, cultural and other traditions must be guarded as an essential ingredient of transnational television. If the proposals strike that balance and protect us from any form of loss of national and cultural identity, they will have been shown to be worthwhile.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to move, to leave out from "activities" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'but can see no merit and no benefit whatsoever in having the content of broadcasting in the United Kingdom or any other member state being subject to a European Economic Community directive; expresses concern about the extent to which the non-elected Commission is being given powers to

implement the directive; believes that broadcasting and artistic merit should be the basis of broadcasting selection rather than Euro protectionism; and trusts that Her Majesty's Government will vote against this absurd proposal which is an insult to the high standards and objectivity traditionally displayed by the United Kingdom broadcasting media.'.
If a Home Office Minister was, in normal conditions and daylight hours, to come to the Dispatch Box and introduce legislation which dictated restrictive new Government terms and conditions with which television and broadcasting companies had to comply in order to put out more than half their own air time, the outcry and vehement denunciation of censorship and state control would soon ring up and down the length and breadth of this country. It says much for the nocturnal, almost clandestine, way in which we continue unsatisfactorily to monitor EC legislation that this very same offensive principle of placing state or, in this case, EC controls on half the transmission time of broadcasting companies should be greeted almost soporifically by the House at 1.47 am as a virtual non-event.
My hon. Friends and I do not think that it is a non-event. We believe that the directive is an extremely important and seminal event. My hon. Friend the Minister should feel deeply unhappy and ashamed at having to support the directive in the way in which he has been forced to do so tonight. The oddest part of his speech was his brave, or perhaps brazen, attempt to make it sound as though his speech this evening flowed naturally with and matched up to that made by the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) when he was the Minister at the Dispatch Box, debating much the same directive on 20 January 1987.
Leaving aside the two personalities, if one read the two speeches with any objectivity one would feel that it was not a harmonious flow, but Tweedledum and Tweedledee having a battle. Time and again the statements made in either one or the other cannot conceivably be matched up. If I had to pick out one clear and demonstrable clash between the two diametrically opposed speeches, I would refer to the statement made by my hon Friend the Minister tonight about how the Government had always believed that majority voting would apply to this directive.
The hon. and learned Member for Putney said:
The point I am putting to my right hon. Friend is that we shall argue with might and main that this is such a contentious matter that it should be dealt with only by way of unanimity."—[Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 855.]
I could find half a dozen other examples in the two speeches. In the previous speech, they are usually accompanied by rhetorical flourishes such as "tooth and nail" or "might and main". However, at the end of all that, we received not a bang, but a whimper of a defence of what is being brought in tonight.

Mr. Renton: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the subject, but I think that he is misquoting me. I did not say that we had always believed that majority voting should apply; I quoted my predecessor, saying that he had accepted in the opening of his speech that the Community had competence in respect of broadcasting, in particular because of the economic base.
I said earlier that the court had confirmed European Community competence in important aspects of broadcasting, which is a service within the meaning of the treaty. I would indeed argue that my speech flowed on from that made by my predecessor in January 1987. Not only, however, have we managed in the intervening two years to


amend all the points in the draft directive that we previously found objectionable but the key case on European competence—the Dutch cable case—arose and was decided only after the Commons debate.

Mr. Aitken: I suggest that, instead of engaging in textual arguments on the Floor of the House, hon. Members read the two speeches. Let us look at the two examples defended by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked:
Is it my hon. Friend's view, and the view of the Government, that the Community should have competence in this issue?".
My hon. Friend the then Minister replied:
No. I think it is our view that the Community's competence in this issue is extremely limited and should remain so."— [Official Report, 20 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 843.]
The clear implication is that at that time the Government did not believe that the Community necessarily had full competence. Here we are talking about whether unanimity applies. It is obvious from what my hon. Friend said then that he considered that it would be essential, but tonight we are saying that it is not.
Instead of engaging in arcane textual argument—important though it may be to resolve the battle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee—let us get on to the gut issues. My hon. Friends and I feel that we should oppose the directive vigorously, on several different grounds. First, it has nothing to do with the single market or with free market forces. Those of my hon. Friends who voted for the Single European Act must be amazed to find that the Act that they thought was all to do with free trade and the toppling of barriers is now forcing television companies to accept a whole set of restrictions. I think that television companies should be free to put on any or all of the best and most popular programmes: that is true broadcasting freedom. But the freedom of the air waves will now be restricted in an astonishing seizure of new powers by what I believe to be the ideological Euro-nannies and Euro-meddlers of Brussels.
What really sticks in our gullets is the statement—which has changed only marginally—that the majority of airtime from now on will have to be given to Euro-programmes from European sources. I think that such a restriction is anti-viewer, anti-populist and, indeed, anti-American. Anti-Americanism provides much of the rocket fuel inside the EEC in favour of the directive.
I am disturbed at the hostility towards the culture and history of the English-speaking peoples that is now emanating from Brussels. Anti-Americanism is a disease that is spreading through the Commission. The fact is that, for better or worse, the taste of the British viewer—and now, we hear, even the Portuguese viewer—is strongly in favour of the United States popular culture, from Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America" to great epics such as "The Winds ofWar" and popular programmes such as "Cagney and Lacey", "Hill Street Blues", "Dallas" and "Dynasty". Those are the shows that viewers apparently like to watch and listen to—and do not let us forget the growing input from other parts of the English-speaking world, such as the Australian popular programme "Neighbours".
Those programmes and their successors will be placed in jeopardy. Big brother in Brussels knows what the average British family enjoys watching and he wants to stop it. Not having been able to beat the popular television

culture of the English-speaking peoples on the ratings, the Euro meddlers now want to drive these programmes off the screens by restrictive legislation. The Government should be pretty miserable at the idea of blessing a proposal that encourages that.
The Government have had to stand on their head. In January 1987, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney said that he would not shrink from voting against a broadcasting Euro directive of the type that was then contemplated. For all the fine words of the Minister of State, attempting to show us that things have changed in the intervening period and that great concessions have been won, the reality is that in June 1989 we are debating only a mildly diluted version of the same unpalatable legislative brew. Far from shrinking away from it, we are asked to swallow it almost whole.
I have said that the Government are standing on their head and I must say how strange the posture of my hon. Friend the Minister looks on the issue of the right of reply. He is the Minister who has done his best to thwart the admirable private Member's Bill, the Right of Reply Bill, which has been promoted by an Opposition Member and which many Conservative Members support. My hon. Friend used strange methods. His oratorial technique in killing off that Bill could be broadly described as "praising with faint damn". He blocked the Right of Reply Bill when it came forward in the House as British legislation, but, lo and behold, this European directive contains a firm commitment to introduce the right of reply on the air waves. It is odd that my hon. Friend can be "Mr. Facing-Both-Ways" on the right of reply issue within such a short time.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdingtort (Mr. Corbett) touched on the issue of advertising. Some of his points are to be commended, but I see others in a different light. I should like to raise a technical point that could have great implications for British television companies. Does the phrase in the directive, the duration of the programme—referring to the amount of advertising time—apply to scheduled time or running time? We appear to be confident that the British interpretation will be accepted, but there may be a triumph of hope over experience.

Mr. Renton: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend immediately. It is agreed that scheduled time is acceptable within the draft directive.

Mr. Aitken: I am glad to hear that, as no doubt will some television companies.
Article 8, which the hon. Member for Erdington praised highly, contains many noble sentiments. We are all in favour of such ideas as preserving decency, the environment and the dignity of women, but we should look at the small print. We are told that advertising must not
offend against prevailing standards of decency",
or
encourage behaviour prejudicial to … the protection of the environment
or
employ forms of expression which contravene respect for the dignity of women.
All those high-sounding ideals are sloppy bits of legislation when it comes down to the possibility of television companies being prosecuted for showing advertisements


that, in someone's opinion, offend against any of those vague and ill-drafted sentiments. They sound fine but are very unsuitable when it comes to practicalities.
I return to the issue of principle and clothe it in the language of practicality. I think that I am the only Member who has had the experience of running a major television company. I suppose that there are those who would say that, in view of that company's history, it could not have been much worse if the entire EEC Commission had had its hands on the controls at the same time. Be that as it may, at least that experience gave me an understanding of what it might be like to operate a television company against the judgments of the directive.
A busy television station has feeds coming into it from all over the world. News stories are breaking all the time. The format of programmes is always changing. With all the hustle and bustle of major programme-making rolling on through the hours, it would be impracticable then to have to get out a stop watch and start to measure how many seconds of time are coming from which sources, which cartoons originate in the United States, which originate in France and to be faced—as one would he under the directive—with very tight bureaucratic restrictions because of the need for the Commission to report regularly on the minutage of the contents of programmes and ensure the application of the provisions in article 2.
Broadcasters need to be given freedom to develop ideas. They do not need the very bad new principle that the directive would introduce.

2 am

Sir Dudley Smith: I join other hon. Members who have criticised the ludicrous hour at which we are debating this important subject. I hope that the lesson will be learnt by those who are responsible, because it happens all too often.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the two-man band onslaught on European legislation that is waged so assiduously in the early hours of the morning. However, on this occasion I have to part company with it. As a member of the Council of Europe Assembly I have been involved in various ways with transfrontier television. I was in Stockholm when the original proposals that were much criticised—I think fairly—by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) were thrashed out by the then 21 nations of the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to the excellent work that was done by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. But for his leadership I do not believe that we should have made the progress that we in fact made. It was a very good convention. As my hon. Friend explained, the directive follows closely the Stockholm proposals.
In this modern age, when television is bursting out in all directions, there must be regulations to govern transfrontier television. Unless a minimum set of rules can be devised, there will eventually be chaos and a great deal of undesirable material will appear on our television screens. I am one of the last to advocate the establishment of a nanny society. I echo some of my hon. Friend's criticisms of action being taken over advertisements. That could be difficult.
When the Council of Europe first considered the subject, it drew up three basic rules to govern what it was trying to achieve on behalf of the countries of Europe. I remind the House that they cover all the countries of Europe, not just those in the EEC. They were the integrity of the television company and the programme, honesty and decency.
The future will bring satellite television and the opportunity before too long to see other countries' programmes without too much difficulty. Sensible though not onerous regulation is needed. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend was so successful over natural breaks for advertising. I am sure that I am right in saying that this now follows closely the pattern of television advertising in this country. I think that it is appreciated by the public. If changes were made, they would be resented. The public are used to our comfortable arrangements. Advertising is not too intrusive, and it is often enjoyed and appreciated.
I sought to speak in the debate tonight to draw attention to one particular aspect which my hon. Friend the Minister should consider. Quite recently, one main French television channel has started showing hard pornography late at night. It makes the sleazy Soho cinema clubs of 10 or 15 years ago look like a vicarage tea party. It is shown on an open channel. We have four main channels in Britain and that material is shown on a main French channel. It does not take much imagination to realise that young people can stay up after 11 o'clock at night, and if they do not want to stay up they can video the programme to watch at some other time. I should like a categorical assurance from my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate that under the rules of transfrontier television in no way will it be possible for people in Britain to receive that French television channel, or any other such programmes as there is also a pornographic programme in Italy.
I am reasonably broad minded, but I was very shocked by that programme and I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members would also be shocked. The public is entitled to the protection offered by the convention and the directive to make absolutely sure that young people and others in society are not brought down to the standards to which I have referred. I hope that my hon. Friend will address that point when he replies to the debate.

Sir Giles Shaw: I shall speak briefly in general support of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said this evening. A considerable time ago the European Commission tried to get involved in the broadcasting scene. At that time we rightly refused to encourage it unless it was able to become involved on a pan-European basis. That is why the fundamental shift that my hon. Friend has put before the House tonight is so significant, not just because the Commission has accepted the Council of Europe's suggested lines of approach, which are wholly preferable to those suggested by the Commission, but because it sets a very important precedent. It suggests that when transfrontier broadcasting can extend far beyond the boundaries of the Commission's competence there might be within the Commission an awareness that it might have to introduce some system which conforms to a far wider grouping of nation states. That is an extremely important precedent.
I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and others find it pretty nasty that there are possible threats to the integrity of television producers in using material which they consider the British public might wish to see. Since the advent of independent television, there have always been pretty significant restraints on the use of imported material. I think that I am right—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that the percentage of imported American material is still a factor which, under IBA regulation, has to be observed within reasonably acceptable limits.
The way in which the directive works out, if and when it is finally ratified, will depend very much on the climate of producers and the public at the time. I am charitable enough to believe—and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South should take heart from this—that many issues that have come before the Commission and have resulted in directives have been applied theoretically as part of Community statute law and have not had a huge impact in various parts of the Community. The French seem to be able to devise a Poitier connection for getting round most obstructive measures, and I have little doubt that broadcasters, whose ingenuity is prodigious, will find ways and means of finding new material from other sources which might have some Community tag attached to it even if it is routed to our screens in some funny or strange way.
What concerns me most was my hon. Friend the Minister of State's passing reference to satellites over Europe, the footprint, and what will go on inside the footprint. It appears that there is great uncertainty as to how far domestic regulation or Commission regulation will have any effect upon the satellite exposure we are about to experience. To what extent does my hon. Friend the Minister feel that the steps announced tonight will be able to embrace that in a sensible yet sensitive way? We all wish to see the development and effective use of broadcasting waves as they become available for use for this purpose and we all wish to see no restraint, in a fairly general sense, of the access of the public to the media.
However, there is a real problem in the origination of satellite material and in the competence that the owners of satellites might easily find in relation to the European Community or the Council of Europe itself. The satellites operate from very distant places. My hon. Friend the Minister must be a little more sanguine if he is to believe that the step he has talked about tonight will have a measurable effect on that development in non-terrestrial broadcasting.
In general, we have come a longish way since the proposals of 1984. I welcome the proposal that my hon. Friend has laid before the House. I am certain that it is not the end of the issue and I am certain that, as time moves on and pressures move on, there will be changes and additions made to the proposal. The right to offer some competence to the Commission in this area is sensible. The first steps it is now taking are infinitely more sensible than its original ones.

Mr. Roger Gale: I had some sympathy with the sentiments of my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in his amendment, but it is a shame that he did not find it

in his heart to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister in securing the convention on transfrontier television.
About a year ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am member, visited Brussels and Strasbourg. In Brussels, we spoke to Lord Cockfield, who was then a European Commissioner. Perhaps I should not speak for my colleagues on the Committee, although I am sure that they would share my view, but I was most concerned by the languid, arrogant and almost laissez-faire attitude that the Commission appeared to be taking to what we regarded as a pressing problem, which was the imminence of the arrival in this country of satellite broadcasting and the total lack at that time of any control over the content of the programming that would and could be received in the United Kingdom.
It is fair to say—and I made some passing reference to this only 24 hours ago in this Chamber—that I am a proponent of satellite broadcasting. I see in it tremendous opportunities for education, for the exchange of culture and language, multi-channel broadcasting and choice. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that we should fear it. I do not believe that it is a threat. I see it as an opportunity, although it is only an opportunity if it is properly used and controlled.
For that reason, having visited Strasbourg, the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report on the future of broadcasting recommended that the Council of Europe convention proposals should be pursued with all possible speed. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South that it is, if not entirely, then very largely, due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister in Stockholm and elsewhere that the convention was agreed and was open for signature in Strasbourg at the 40th anniversary plenary session of the Council of Europe last month.
It is a matter of sadness to me and perhaps of some interest to hon. Members of all parties that since the convention was opened a number of countries that are members of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom is proud to be one, have signed the convention. However, perhaps significantly, among the major European Community countries, France, Germany and Italy, which kicked up much of the fuss, had, at the last count, not signed the convention.
The directive reflects much of the provisions of the transfrontier broadcasting convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said that he felt that it was right that United Kingdom television companies should be allowed to broadcast "all and any of the best of television". With respect, I find nothing in the transfrontier convention or, by implication, in the directive that would prevent his television company, or any other, from doing precisely that.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State picked me up when I said that the United States might become a signatory to the Council of Europe convention. There is not yet—but there will be—provision for non-member states to add their names to the convention. It is likely that in due course the north American states, both the United States and Canada, and possibly Australia, may find commercial advantage in adding their names to the convention with a view to not only pan-European but possibly pan-world broadcasting. Companies such as


Cable News Network may well wish to take advantages of the opportunities for transfrontier broadcasting in Europe.
We should remember that when we in the United Kingdom talk about transfrontier broadcasting, we tend to talk in satellite terms because our terrestrial broadcasting is not by satellite. However, on the continent, and within the now 23 countries of the Council of Europe, transfrontier broadcasting can mean terrestrial broadcasting. Transfrontier is a much simpler concept. Indeed, some United Kingdom programmes are watched with great interest and enjoyment on the north coast of the continent.
That experience is much more common in othe European countries. The tiny Principality of Liechtenstein, for example, has no television station of its own and relies entirely on transfrontier broadcasting—on German, Austrian and Swiss programming—for its television reception. It has expressed real and genuine concerns about intrusions on its culture. Some of us in the Council of Europe have sought to encourage that state to establish its own broadcasting systems for precisely those reasons.
Although I shall not vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South because I agree only with its first part and not with its second part, in support of it I should say that I believe that it is wrong that this House should address this issue at this hour in the morning of the day on which the Council of Ministers will discuss the directive.
The Select Committee on European Legislation reported that
the Commission has made it clear that it is not prepared to accept a number of major amendments requested by the Parliament, because these would have jeopardised the rapid adoption of the draft Directive.
It is referring to the European Parliament.
With great respect, there has been nothing rapid about the European Commission's progress in this matter. Indeed, it would still be discussing it cheerfully had it not been goaded into action by the Council of Europe convention, and largely by the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Having taken so long to achieve so little and to base its conclusions finally on the Council of Europe convention, perhaps it could be asked by the Minister attending the Council of Ministers later today to take just a little longer and to pay greater heed to the Members of the European Parliament.
While the transfrontier broadcasting convention, which I have welcomed as has the House publicly, is a voluntary convention, voluntarily entered into, tonight we are dealing with something very different. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South makes clear in his amendment, the directive represents an imposition by an unelected Commission and I do not think that we can welcome that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I must at the outset object to the hour at which we are asked to debate this issue and to the limit of an hour and a half for the debate. I believe that we shall hear a great deal more about the content of the directive, remembering that we must in any event translate it into our own legislation. When that has happened somebody might wake up to precisely what

is involved. I wonder whether they are awake at Broadcasting house and whether these deliberations will be featured in "Yesterday in Parliament" later today. This matter is of fundamental importance to all broadcasters, present and future, in this country.
Speaking from experience, the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made what I would call a reasonable contribution. I sympathised to a great extent with what he said. I understand that one reason for including what he called an anti-American element is an effort by the French-speaking people in the European Community, and possibly some Germans, to withstand, as it were, what they see as the tide of English language.
In that, of course, we have a natural interest. Indeed, there are feelings in this country too, about certain aspects of north America culture which can penetrate our culture and air waves more easily than they can penetrate those of France and Germany. Certainly an effort is being made by those countries, and particularly France, to retain their cultural identity, and with that the hon. Member for Thanet, South will have some sympathy, as I have.
The points that I wish to raise are treaty-based. I said some time ago that many surprises would spring from the Single European Act, and tonight we have one of them. There was not a scintilla of a suggestion when we ratified that legislation that we would be faced with this type of directive.
I accept what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said about the need for some international arrangement on satellites. Whether that should be done through a Council of Europe convention, which this directive parallels, or through the competence of the treaty of Rome, is the point at issue. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) spoke of the need for an international arrangement covering satellites and their standards.
The Council of Europe is a good forum in which to achieve that. But what if the European Community says, "We shall not keep within the Council of Europe on this. We claim competence by majority vote to make an alternative set of proposals which are not parallel to those of the Council of Europe"—or, for that matter, even with those which the Government could not accept? We would then be in dead trouble because, as the Minister conceded, the matter would be decided by weighted majority vote.
The articles under which the directive is promulgated are strange. Article 57(2) speaks of
the co-ordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons.
It is significant that the heading of the memorandum which the Minister produced on 7 June also used those words. It read:
Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.
The opening words of that heading follow the wording of article 57(2). The clue to it all lies in the final words:
the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.
That is not mentioned in article 57.
It is based on another article which comes at the end of a chapter about what are called "Services"—broadcasting is a service—and that is article 66, which is so short that I can read it all;
The provisions of Articles 55 to 58 shall apply to the matters covered by this Chapter.


It is rather like having a provision at the end of an Act of Parliament saying, "This part of the Bill applies to everything contained in an earlier part of the Bill."
As I understand it, that particular mechanism gives competence to the Community. Who, on initial reading of the Single European Act, would envisage such a backtrack mechanism? If I have that wrong, and if the Minister has the time to reply to the debate, I am sure that he will correct me. It is an example of the surprise package. All matters of regulation relating to all services of all sorts come within the ambit of article 57 which, in certain aspects, carries majority voting. In fact, the issue is even more complicated than I have suggested, but I have tried to give the bones of it.
In view of the time I shall conclude, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I feel bound to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have powers under Standing Orders to postpone the conclusion of the debate if you feel that the matter is of such importance as to warrant that. I am not necessarily suggesting that you do so, especially as the matter has to be decided in the Council today. This is an example of the very narrow window of time in which we have to deal with these matters.

Mr. Renton: The matter does not have to be decided in the Council today. I said earlier that it would be discussed in the Interior Market Council.

Mr. Spearing: It may not be decided, but it will be discussed. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that, constitutionally, if so agreed a decision could be taken.

Mr. Renton: Yes.

Mr. Spearing: Under the complex rules of the Council of Ministers, if the Presidency so decided the matter could be put to the vote. Again, it is a matter of procedure of when the question should be put. The Presidency could put the question and wrap up the matter. The Minister is nodding. I do not suppose that the Presidency will think fit to do that because there is a consensus that it is not yet time to take that decision. It is another example of the way that this House and this country are being constrained not only by the terms of the treaty, unexpected though they are, but because of the procedures adopted by the Council of Ministers.
My final point about broadcasters is that a few weeks ago there were four important debates on the European Community. The first related to a new withholding tax, the second to merger control—which is departing these shores for Brussels—the third to public procurement and the fourth to the six-monthly White Paper. The first three matters were legislative. They were not reported on an otherwise well-regarded programme called "Today in Parliament". Its half-hour report at the end of the day did not cover any of those three debates. The programme, which is broadcast from 11.30 pm to midnight, went out two and a half hours ago and, therefore, cannot have reported this debate which, ironically, is about broadcasting. I have mentioned that as an important footnote to yesterday's debate on television and a dedicated channel. I hope that among the 200 channels there will be a dedicated channel covering all debates in the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I wish to say a few words, which I hope the Minister will consider. We are discussing the vital issue of transfer of sovereignty. If anyone thinks that that is not important, he should read the Hansard of the debate in January 1987. The then Minister made it abundantly clear that he would fight for the Council of Europe proposal because it was abundantly different from an EEC directive. The Government said that they would fight all the way and would do everything possible to ensure that there was unanimity. They made it clear that in their view the EEC did not have any control and that the Council of Europe proposal was right.
The Minister is well aware that night after night, when no one in Britain is aware of what is happening, we are transferring responsibility from democratic bodies, Government bodies and bodies over which we and the people have some kind of control, to the non-elected EEC Commission.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the recent debate on merger control. W e gave the Commission the power to send inspectors into British firms to ask for information and to impose fines for which they need not go to a court. This directive—which, of course, will be accepted—gives the Commission powers over British broadcasting and British broadcasting companies. What do we do about it?
If there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members, they should look at paragraph 2 of the proposals, because there it clearly and precisely states that
The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions in Article 2(1)"—
which are concerned with the majority European broadcasts—
and Article 3 in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.
The Minister is, of course, saying what Ministers consistently say late at night—"We are glad to say that the directive is not so bad as it once was". We heard the same comment the other night about heavy lorries. We shall have heavy lorries, but they will come two years later. We had, too, the debate on mergers. Tonight the Minister is really saying, "Do not worry about this directive, because it will not do anything that will upset British broadcasters."
I hope that hon. Members will look at clause 2, because that says that we shall have to give reports about what every British broadcasting company is doing to the non-elected Commission. It will consider those reports, give opinions on them and give advice as to how the proposal should be changed. The Minister says that it is only the majority of broadcasts that must be Euro-broadcasts. Even that is not terribly clear—and that includes some Council of Europe Members. Sadly, what the Minister did not say was that, under article 3, there is a specific proposal for the Council of Ministers by a majority to change that to whatever figure, conditions or considerations that it might want. The Minister must be aware of that. It is because the Government fought this so severely and so well in 1987 that we now have something completely different. When we have something in the Council of Europe, we know that there the basic control and responsibility is left to a democratically elected parliament and bodies appointed by that parliament.
I wish that our party Whips would appreciate how serious it is when we transfer control to a non-elected


committee. We are doing that night after night in the House, and no one is hearing about it. There was a time when I heard the Prime Minister's splendid words about how we would fight this unnecessary transfer of sovereignty. We were going to stop the Single European Act being used for what it was not intended. We were to promote free trade. What we have, however, is not the free trade that we want, but the transfer of more and more responsibility to the non-elected Commission.
For those who say that they are not terribly worried about the content of the directive, let them think about what happened recently about the sixth directive. When we debated that directive in the House we were told that there was nothing in that that could be used to affect Britain's zero VAT rating. Yet, as the Minister is well aware, we have had two recent court cases in which the Commission interfered with our zero rates.
We are doing something terribly serious tonight. If hon. Members read the directive or read the debate of 1987, or if the Minister studies the files in his Department, they will appreciate the seriousness of the matter. The Government fought a very hard battle to stop this becoming a Euro-directive. The Government said that they would fight it by "might and main". They knew that the issue here was not the question of how much sovereignty, but the question of the transfer of that sovereignty. What we are doing is starting a process whereby the control of broadcasting is switched to a non-elected body of the European Commission. That is a most dangerous thing for our democracy and, in the long term, Parliament will regret it.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), some other hon. Members and I are a thorough nuisance keeping people up when they could be asleep. Probably our action is pointless, as our views will have no effect because of the decisions that will be taken tomorrow. Our action is utterly pointless, as this House has no power. At the end of the day, however, I do not believe that we should be fulfilling our obligations to our constituents and doing the job for which we are paid if we did not say that this decision was shocking, shameful and undemocratic. I believe that Parliament will live to regret it.

Mr. William Cash: I have a paper with me that was issued from Brussels entitled "Common position adopted by the Council on 13 April 1989". To my surprise, I found that it was published on 10 April, apparently three days before the document was adopted. That is extraordinary.
Some of my hon. Friends have already have said that the legislation will be implemented by way of a United Kingdom statute. That statute must be construed in a manner that is consistent with the directive. If there are any inconsistencies, the European Court of Justice will determine the matter against the statute in favour of the directive. Parallel to the directive are the provisions of the Council of Europe convention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has already said that other third-party states outside the EC may become subscribing members to the Council of Europe convention. Effectively we could be faced with

a tripartite problem—a United Kingdom statute that is interpretable through our courts to the European Court of Justice; the provisions of the directive which are within the framework of that European Court and the Council of Europe convention that could be interpreted in a different way. The directive's provisions cover—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary for the disposal of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 68.

Division No. 239]
[2.37 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Clay, Bob
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Roger Gale and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Jonathan Aitken.


Michael, Alun



NOES


Amess, David
Jack, Michael


Amos, Alan
Lightbown, David


Arbuthnot, James
Lord, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Miller, Sir Hal


Atkinson, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Bevan, David Gilroy
Nelson, Anthony


Boswell, Tim
Norris, Steve


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Paice, James


Burns, Simon
Porter, David (Waveney)


Carrington, Matthew
Renton, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Day, Stephen
Stern, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Stevens, Lewis


Durant, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Fallon, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Forth, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thurnham, Peter


Gregory, Conal
Tracey, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hague, William
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Waller, Gary


Harris, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Watts, John


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Ann


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)



Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Irvine, Michael
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 7.

Division No. 240]
[2.48 am


AYES


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Burns, Simon
Durant, Tony






Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Renton, Tim


Gregory, Conal
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Harris, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stern, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Summerson, Hugo


Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Irvine, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jack, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lightbown, David
Watts, John


Lord, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Sir Hal



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Norris, Steve
Mr. David Maclean.


NOES


Clay, Bob
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Michael, Alun
Mr. Harry Barnes.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5574/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 30th March 1989 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 7th June 1989 relating to broadcasting activities; and endorses the Government's view that since these provisions now follow closely those of the Council of Europe's Convention on Transfrontier Television, they should be welcomed as contributing to the reduction of barriers to trade and the maintenance of the internationally-held principles of free-flow of information.

Cardiff Wales Airport (Rail Link)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. John P. Smith: At this very late hour I should like to bring to the attention of the House a matter which my constituents, a broad spectrum of people in Wales and I believe to be of great concern—the pressing need for a surface rail link to Cardiff Wales airport.
I wish to argue the need for this on three grounds. First, I believe that there are inadequate surface transportation links with Cardiff Wales airport, road or rail. More important, unless we provide a surface rail link to serve the airport the implications for its future look very bad. The final reason is that there is already a proven case for the reopening of a passenger rail link from Barry in south Glamorgan to Bridgend in Mid Glamorgan, passing through the western Vale of Glamorgan and the town of Llantwit Major. It would skirt the airport, and it would not be a very difficult job to provide a link for both passengers and freight.
I argue my first point on the following grounds. The existing surface link with Cardiff Wales airport is the road from Culverhouse Cross in north-west Cardiff—which has a good link along the link road to the M4—through Weycock Cross. However, on that link a single-lane carriageway must cater for the considerable volume of traffic that has recently built up following developments in north-west Barry. On bank holidays, and during the nice weather that we have experienced recently, the road is even more congested. On the recent spring bank holiday I understand that it was jammed solid from Culverhouse Cross right through to the holiday resort of Barry Island, in my constituency. Any passengers attempting to reach Cardiff Wales airport to embark on either internal flights or flights abroad could well have been unable to get there.
I have it on good authority that the present position is unacceptable, and that it may well be costing the airport much-needed trade and custom. It could be argued that we are losing business unnecessarily to adjacent airports such as Birmingham and possibly even Bristol. I recognise, however, that at present the airport is doing very well in difficult circumstances. Trade has increased, and the volume of passengers and freight out of the airport has risen slightly. I understand that the number of flights and aircraft has fallen, but the aircraft that are coming in are of a larger scale and able to carry much more, which is very encouraging.
That brings me to my second point. It will not bode well for the airport's future if we fail to grasp the nettle now, and to understand the need for investment in a rail link. The accepted view is that the increase in air traffic will continue in the foreseeable future, because of reduced flight costs, more efficient aircraft and people who now have higher disposable incomes and can afford air travel. If Cardiff Wales airport is to meet the needs of increased passenger numbers and freight, it needs an adequate surface link. If we want it to be a gateway to European markets in 1992—I am sure that the Minister agrees—we must provide that link or we will live to regret it. Once again, we may find ourselves trailing behind other regions.
The need for a link has been recognised in other regions. It is of such importance that I decided to take this


opportunity to bring it to the attention of the House. Other premier regional airports have introduced rail links. Birmingham has a direct rail link to its recently constructed terminal. Manchester has agreed with British Rail to provide a rail link to serve the important regional airport there. There is an agreement in Newcastle to extend the Metro system to provide a station to serve Newcastle airport. A rail link has been built into Stansted airport. Those links recognise the demand for access.
Local authorities, my colleagues, many industrialists in Wales, individuals representing the tourist industry and, understandably, the airport authority share my concern about prospects for the airport if this facility is not provided. There is a danger that the airport will start to lose custom and, in the process, its regional status. I hope that I am not exaggerating, but I am sure that the Minister and all Welsh Members share my worry. We should direct attention towards this issue.
My third argument for the surface rail link is based on the undoubted need to reopen the passenger line through the Vale of Glamorgan, which was shut under Beeching some time ago. I note with interest that at the annual general meeting of South Glamorgan county council the incoming chairwoman, Councillor Lorna Hughes, referred in her inaugural address to the long-standing need to provide a passenger rail link through the vale. There are numerous reasons for that. The most important demographic factor is the considerable expansion of local communities since Beeching.
Account must be taken of the increasing reliance on car transportation. A large number of people commute from the Vale of Glamorgan to Cardiff. It is a significant travel-to-work area. Much of the traffic congestion on the roads could be alleviated if commuters switched to other forms of transport, including public transport. The most obvious alternative form of transport, and the one that makes the most sense, is a rail line through the Vale of Glamorgan.
A line already exists. Unlike what happened in other areas, it was not removed. The line is used regularly to transport freight through the vale, to Bridgend in particular. Steam coal is transported regularly to Aberthaw power station. I understand that 11 trains a day use that line. Passengers also use the line on Sundays when repairs are being carried out to the main line from Barry, or from London to Swansea. That line skirts the airport. It would be a relatively easy task—I stress that point, bearing in mind some of British Rail's comments during the last few years—to reopen the line. When it had been reopened to passenger traffic, it would he relatively easy to provide a link to Cardiff Wales airport.
British Rail does not share that view. It has argued that the line would not be economically viable. If one examines British Rail's ability to provide new services in south Wales, one finds that its track record is neither very encouraging nor very good. New stations that have been opened in south Glamorgan, largely as a result of local government initiatives, have proved to be highly successful. I refer to the opening of Cathays station in Cardiff. That was wholly a local authority-South Glamorgan county council initiative. British Rail was obviously reluctant to open it, but it has proved to be a huge success. It was followed by a joint venture, with

Welsh Office assistance, to provide other stations, including Eastbrook Halt. Passenger transport from the Dinas Powys community increased by 60 per cent. after that station was opened. I am absolutely convinced that a similar increase in traffic would result from an extension of the line through the Vale of Glamorgan and from the provision of additional stations.
This important matter is not being given the attention that it deserves. I hope that the Minister has been listening carefully. Local people believe that the need for a rail link to Cardiff Wales airport should be recognised. A decision must be taken now because of the planning and land acquisition considerations, and even the engineering and design considerations, that will have to be dealt with during the next couple of years.
If a decision is not taken now, I fear that we shall fall behind what has been achieved by airports in other regions that have recognised the need to tackle the problem. The Secretary of State for Wales sets great store by his ability to serve the region and the community. It could well be a test for the Secretary of State for Wales to realise that we can continue to develop the Welsh economy only if we provide a rail link to Cardiff Wales airport. I apologise if I have slightly exceeded my time.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on securing his first Adjournment debate and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to say how much I support Cardiff Wales airport.
The airport provides valuable scheduled services to Amsterdam, Dublin and various destinations in the United Kingdom. Amsterdam provides a gateway to many destinations in Europe and across the world. Cardiff is served by charter flights to many places, notably the tourist areas of Europe. It is also served by regular transatlantic charter flights to such places as Orlando, Florida, New York and Toronto.
I am sure that as the skies over London become more congested, the Cardiff airport management will seize every opportunity to attract further traffic to Cardiff Wales airport. I wish them well in such ventures, which will no doubt be aided by the increasing liberalisation of the airways being brought about by the European Community
I am aware that the airport management, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, has been conducting and continues to conduct surveys to determine the customer potential of new routes. These are providing much useful information as a basis on which to attract new services to the airport. I understand that with the help of those surveys, some new scheduled services to the continent are already in the pipeline and the airport is also looking to enhance its services to north America.
Cardiff Wales airport currently handles about 750,000 passengers per year. Most of those come from south Wales, the majority travelling in the peak holiday period. Some others come from the west country, particularly for the transatlantic charter services. The majority travel to the airport by car, but there is a good bus service from central Cardiff and from Barry.
I am aware that the airport management wish to see improvements to the access from Cardiff to the airport. The late hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, Sir Raymond Gower, also wrote to me on this topic. Interest


has been expressed both in the improvement of road access and in the provision of a rail service. The former is of course a matter for South Glamorgan county council which is the highway authority for the area. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Culverhouse Cross-Capel Llanilltern link is a great improvement to communications in the area.
As well as securing this debate, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan has written to my right hon. Friend arguing the case for the reopening to passengers of the Vale of Glamorgan freight line, which passes near the perimeter of Cardiff Wales airport. To provide a rail link to the airport would require the reopening of a section of this line to passenger traffic. I must, therefore, first of all explain the Government's views on the reopening of new railway lines by British Rail.
The opening or reopening of any railway line is initially a decision for the British Railways Board to make in the light of the general objectives set for it by the Government. The railways board is expected to take a proper commercial approach to such proposals. It must also take into account any funds available from other sources, such as local authorities or the private sector. Any central Government funding would be dependent upon the ability of British Rail to demonstrate that the proposal will bring quantifiable economic external benefits to the community as a whole, such as relief from severe traffic congestion. Normally the Government would expect the costs of a new railway to be met by those who directly benefit.
Cardiff Wales airport is a limited company jointly owned by Mid, West and South Glamorgan county councils. Those authorities stand to benefit from any increased patronage at the airport and I am sure that it must be reasonable, in that circumstance, for the authorities to bear at least a share of any costs involved in providing improved access. Indeed, county councils have a duty to decide how best to meet the transport requirements of their areas. This would be South Glamorgan for the area including Cardiff Wales airport.
The Government's policy is that if a council adopts the reopening of a particular line, it would have to bear any capital costs of the project which cannot be supported commercially by British Rail.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan county councils have already collaborated on a joint rail strategy, to which he referred. The first phase of this strategy, which was funded as a project of regional or national importance, has brought considerable improvements to rail services in those counties. I understand that the counties arc likely to put in a bid for a PRNI allocation for a second phase of this strategy, but it may not include a spur to serve the airport, as their last recorded view was that the current passenger levels using the airport could not justify such a link in the near future.
It seems that there are two ways in which Cardiff Wales airport might be connected to the railway. A link to the airport terminal would require a stretch of new railway line from the existing Vale of Glamorgan freight line, upgraded to passenger standards as necessary. Choice of route would he constrained by the Porthkerry viaduct and the adjacent deep cutting. Such a scheme would take some high quality agricultural land and would have serious consequences for Porthkerry village. It would be an expensive business.
An alternative would be a scheme including the reintroduction of passenger services along the Vale of Glamorgan line to a station at or near Rhoose. A station on that line would be some distance from the airport terminal and might not be very attractive, given the available bus services. The line itself would need to be upgraded and provided with new signalling to lake passenger traffic. I am told that rolling stock alone would cost in the region of £1·6 million.
British Rail is aware of the interest shown generally in the reintroduction of passenger services to the Vale of Glamorgan line. It has not made any detailed assessments of the potential viability of such a service because it does not consider it necessary. In its judgment, based on experience in other parts of the country, the population of the Vale of Glamorgan is insufficient to sustain such a service. Mid and South Glamorgan county councils did look into the possibility of the inclusion of the Vale of Glamorgan line within their joint rail strategy, but they have decided that the case for this line is insufficiently strong, at least in the short term.
In his letter to my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that several airports enjoy, or will enjoy, the rail links. The hon. Gentleman has made very much the same point tonight and I accept the point. Most of those airports serve a far higher population than Cardiff Wales airport. Two of them, Birmingham and Stansted, were already close to existing passenger lines and at least one other will be served by an already expanding local suburban railway network. Even Heathrow has only relatively recently been linked to the Underground system, which affords comparatively slow access to central London. The proposed new rail link between Heathrow and Paddington will be heavily dependent on the availability of external finance before it can be built. There are many other airports, which I could list for the hon. Gentleman, with no rail links, such as Bristol and Edinburgh.
I realise that what I have just said is not very encouraging. I realise the importance to Wales of a thriving international airport and the advantages which a rail link would bring but British Rail cannot provide and service such a link unless it is commercially viable. On present indications, there does not appear to be a satisfactory economic case.
The lack of a link is not stifling growth at the airport. New charter services have been introduced this year and prospects seem promising for the introduction of further services, both charter and scheduled. I am pleased to see that the airport management has plans for further development and that it is striving to increase its business.
The airport already has runway facilities to handle the largest jets and is extending its apron so that Boeing 747s can be more easily accommodated. To cope with increasing numbers of passengers the airport has provided new departure lounges and new covered walkways were brought into use this year to provide access for passengers direct from the departure lounges to their aircraft. Extra parking space for cars will become available in the near future. Further developments are in the pipeline as more lounge facilities with escalator connections are developed over the winter months in the upper levels of the terminal building.
The increasing levels of air traffic will soon require new and improved local air traffic control facilities. Discussions are already in hand with the air traffic control authorities


and new radar installations are expected to be introduced during the winter period. There are also plans for a new hotel development which will serve air travellers.
Therefore, I tend to disagreee with the hon. Gentleman that the prospects for Cardiff airport are not bright. I contradict that. With these developments, the airport's prospects are very good. I am sure that the local authorities that are involved in the running of the airport

and with the provision of local roads and improved rail services in the area—they are collaborating with British Rail—will take the airport's prospects and its best interests into account. It is clear that the interests of the airport, which is run by the local authorities, are very much in tune with their own interests. I am sure that they will be safeguarded in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Three o'clock.